Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock.

The House, being met, the Clerk at the Table (Sir T. Lonsdale Webster) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this Day's Sitting.

Whereupon, Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

TRADE UNIONS (RESTORATION OF LIBERTY) BILL.

"to restore to the members of Trade Unions their industrial and political freedom, "presented by Mr. MACQUISTEN; supported by Captain Fairfax and Mr. Goodman Roberts; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 30th November, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question stood on the. Order paper in the name of Mr. CONNOLLY:

1. To ask the Minister of Labour by what authority special visiting committees to provincial Employment Exchanges are set up which are exercising what amounts to a right of veto on the decisions of rota committees and subcommittees arrived at in conformity with the Acts?

Mr. CONNOLLY: On a point of Order. What becomes of my question which I put a moment or two ago, and which was not answered?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Ministers are not bound to be here on Friday. The question of the hon. Member will, no doubt, be given a written answer in due course. [See cols. 788 and 784.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. You called upon the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). He is not here. Do I understand in relation to the Bill which was presented a few moments ago that someone else has handed in the Bill in his name.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman was here, although somewhat belated.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order. The House has passed a Resolution which precludes it from considering any Private Members' Bills. Does that prevent an hon. Member from presenting a Bill, though we know it cannot possibly be considered by the House? May an hon. Member present a Bill on the assumption that the Government may presumably take it up?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Any hon. Member at all times may present a Bill, though hon. Members must often know that there is little chance of the Bill being proceeded with.

Captain BENN: On that point of Order. Might I submit that the circumstances of this Session are peculiar. The House has passed a Resolution that no Private Member's Bill may even be considered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: They cannot be considered, but they may be presented.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [16th November] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was: In page 27, line 11, to leave out Clause 31 (Issue of search warrants).—[Sir Patrick Hastings.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'information,' in line 11, stand part of the Bill."

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): If I might make an announcement it would possibly save hon. Members proceeding with this matter. I have discussed Clause 31 with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. I realise, of course, that the Clause is a very contentious Clause. At the same time, I think that all parties in the House are anxious that the Bill itself should not be imperilled by a contest over this Clause. That being so, I propose, with the assent of the House, to withdraw the Clause altogether. The Bill is of such importance that, as I said when I was speaking upon it a couple of days ago, this course is desirable. But it is not a political Bill. It is not meant to be a political Bill. On the other hand, if there was any idea that there was any unfair political implication in this Clause, or that it could be used for that purpose, I want to make it perfectly clear that that is not so.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Oh!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not, of course, speaking of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I, therefore, propose to ask the House for leave to withdraw the Clause, and I appeal to the House to pass the rest of the Bill without much further discussion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the Clause. The Question has been put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'information' in line 11, stand part of the Bill." That will
have to be negatived, then it will be necessary to move to leave out tie remainder of the Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word ' information in line 11, stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."— [Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain BENN: Is it usual on the Report stage, if a Clause is to be left out, that the Motion should be made for the Clause to be left out before Amendments are considered?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As a matter of fact it is not strictly necessary after the first words have gone.

Captain BENN: That was not the question that you had put from the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question I put was, "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain BENN: I think I rose in time to make my point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentlemen will be able to make the point he is anxious to make on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Did I not hear you put the Question that the remaining words be left out? I did not hear the voices collected.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was not necessary that I should do so. Perhaps I was in error in putting it at all.

Remaining words of the Clause left out.

CLAUSE 35.—(Amendment of ss. 1 and 18 of Forgery Act, 1913.)

Amendment made: In page 31, line 9, leave out the words "within the meaning", and insert instead thereof the words "for the purposes ".—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks].

CLAUSE 39.— [Penalty for drunkenness while in charge of motor car and for reckless driving.]

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I beg to move, in page 33, line 4, to leave out the word "drunk", and to insert instead thereof the words
in a state of intoxication whereby his capacity to act is impaired.
It will be within the recollection of the House that this Amendment was put down by one of the hon. Members on the other side of the House. To-day the question of the dangers to our roads owing to carelessly driven motorcars has become a national one. Matters are far more dangerous than on the railways, which have all along been safeguarded by having notices put up that trespassers will be prosecuted. With the rapid movement of motorists we have a situation that is becoming deeply fixed in the public mind, and one which calls for a stronger application of the law. In some case we can find that even where there has been a previous conviction a comparatively small fine has been imposed, because in the case of an aristocrat the person could easily lay down £ 1,000. With this particular phase of the matter we ought to have no difficulty at all if the word "drunk" were removed and the words I have proposed were substituted. Feeling strongly as I do that these words really are necessary I urge upon the Government to make the change.
The trouble is that we have such cases as that which has just taken place at Royston, Yorkshire, in which a driver, according to the Coroner, had too much to drink, but was completely absolved and cleared, although a life had been taken away, that of a, miner 62 years of age. I submit that where there is evidence, as was particularly emphasised by the Coroner, that a driver has had too much drink, it is not necessary to go through those elaborate tests which are sometimes applied to ascertain whether a man is drunk; it is sufficient to say that if his capacity for controlling the machine has been in any way impaired, there should be no excuse and a severe penalty ought to be imposed. There is no doubt that the cry in respect of drunken motorists is a warrantable one, but I do not see that those cases are any more serious than the whole range and catalogue of disasters that is falling on the nation
because of the provision of this particular concoction from which the Government is deriving what they call revenue. But it is worth while emphasising that in cases of this kind we get a general agreement among the public that some action must be taken. In other classes of cases the view we put forward is treated as a mere sentimentality, but I do not reckon that the knocking down of a man in the street by a motorist who is under the influence of drink is any more serious than the case of a man knocking out some of the members of his family and having to go to the scaffold. I reckon, to say the least of it, that the one case is equally as important as the other; but we cannot get these motoring cases dealt with in the only way in which they ought to be dealt with.
In this Bill we are making a law for settling questions arising through drink which have to be dealt with in the Courts. Cases of furious driving, apart from the question of drink, are being dealt with and one can get evidence to prove by the rate at which a man is driving, and the manner in which the machine has been proceeding, that there is ground for conviction; but all over the country, as some of us know by actual experience, a travesty of justice is going on. Any poor individual brought to the bar of a police court can be convicted by two police constables of being drunk and incapable, but I would not advise anyone, supposing he had twenty witnesses, to try to prove that a police-constable was drunk. I advise him not to try it, because he would find out by experience, as some other people have done, that he would fail. These are circumstances which have got to be faced. Customers of the liquor business have no right to talk about the liberty of the subject if that liberty is to become a licence to smash the lives of his fellow men, and we must get over any legal or technical difficulties there may be in proving a case against them, and the whole range of experience in the courts has proven that this word has been a. safeguard for dangerous persons. What we have to do is to see that where a man driving a machine has in any way had his capacity for controlling that machine impaired, so that he endangers the interests of other people, that wherever that can be established and, by the simple use of the English language, it can be shown that
he has been affected in that way, the Courts ought to be able to register a conviction against him. Those of us who have looked into the effects of drink know that they go to the brain, and if from that point of vantage they exercise any impairment, as there is impairment, then we are liable to have such dangerous consequences as those of which we have been speaking. The Government are anxious to defend the interests of the people, and here is an opportunity where, by a simple re-arrangement of the English language, we can avoid many of the serious troubles which have afflicted people in the past; and undoubtedly a much more formidable case will confront the man who runs risks from drink before he starts to drive his motor car. In moving this Amendment I hope we shall be allowed a free, full and frank vote in the lobbies of the House.

Mr. GR0TR1AN: I rise to second this Amendment, though possibly not for quite the same reasons as those which actuate the Mover. I do think the words he suggests are an improvement. No doubt the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in framing this Amendment, had in his mind the Order in Council of 26th June, 1923, amending the Air Navigation Order, 1922, where similar words are used. As the hon. Member said, the word "drunk" is a horrid word. It has a horrid past, legally speaking. Probably no two persons agree as to when a man is or is not drunk; certainly no two doctors seem to agree about it. We have had all sorts of ridiculous tests applied to ascertain whether a man is drunk or not, tests to see whether he can walk along an imaginary line that is not there, or stand upon one leg with his eyes shut, which is not a very easy thing for some people to do when they are sober. We have all these tests to find out whether a man is drunk, and then the other day a stipendary magistrate decided in a case that came before him that a man was neither drunk nor sober. No doubt he was perfectly right, but what I want to point out is that he would have been able to say whether a man's capacity to act had been impaired by the drink he had taken. It may be said that "in a state of intoxication" and "drunk'' mean exactly the same thing, but there is some distinction, and there is some authority
for that distinction. Hon. Members will recall that Mr. Boswell, the chronicler of Johnson, was a man who habitually took too much drink. He promised his friend Temple upon one occasion that he would reform, and in future would take only one bottle of hock for dinner. Unfortunately, however, he exceeded that allowance, and in writing to his friend Temple, in a state of great contrition, 'he uses this expression,
I did not get drunk. I was, however, intoxicated.
Even in those days there was some distinction. I know that we shall be met with the objection that this Amendment enlarges the powers of the police. I think that is in its favour, because everyone admits that the phrase "the quick and the dead" would soon cease to have any meaning because they would all have passed into the category of the dead, except some of the very quickest. Therefore I do not regard that as any objection at all. I am aware that the Government have promised a Bill to amend the law relating to road vehicles, and to carry out those recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Ministry of Transport. I would like to point out, however, that if this Amendment is carried and this proposal we are discussing is found to work badly, the matter could be remedied in that Bill. I admit that this proposal is rather an excrescence on this Bill, and that we might have waited until the promised Bill is produced, but here we have a chance of trying this proposal now, and then if it is not successful the Home Secretary can introduce a Clause dealing with the matter in his Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite true as the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has pointed out that this Clause is, to some extent, an excrescence on the Bill, and that the Bill to be brought in by the Ministry of Transport ought to deal with this case. It has been urged that there should be a more severe penalty for a man who is drunk in charge of a vehicle than for a man who is charged with being drunk in the ordinary case. My own view is that a man who is drunk in charge of a motor car should be subject to a higher penalty. Now my hon. Friend (Mr. Scrymgeour) comes forward with a definition as to the meaning of the
word "drunk." An authority which has been quoted by the hon. Member for South West Hull declared that in one case the man was not drunk and yet he was not sober. Would that man be "in a state of intoxication"? I have tried to find out what a state of intoxication means, and according to the Oxford Dictionary "intoxication means—

"1. The action of poisoning; administration of poison; killing by poison; the state of being poisoned.
"2. The action of rendering stupid, insensible or disordered in intellect with a drug or alcoholic liquor.
"3. The poisoning of the moral or mental faculties."

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is dealing with the law which enables a man to have the right to sell intoxicants.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That really has nothing to do with the Amendment, because we are discussing not the licensing laws, but whether the word "drunk" ought to be changed, and the phrase "in a state of intoxication" substituted for it. If you are going to change the definition in that way, a man will claim to be charged with the new charge—that he is in a state of intoxication. I do not think there is any reason why you should change the meaning of the word, and I suggest that we are only wasting time on this Amendment. I have introduced a clause dealing with motorists driving when they are drunk. I think it is an abominable offence, and that my object is to make the penalty more severe for this particular offence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the word "drunk" is capable of several meanings, and I claim to speak rather as an expert on the point in this way. As a naval officer who spent many years in the Navy, I have been called upon on many occasions to judge whether a man is drunk or not. We had a rule in the Navy which I commend to the Home Secretary. We did not call in the doctor to decide in such a case at all. "When a man is brought up for drunkenness in the Navy medical evidence is not admitted, and the executive officer is the judge, and the test generally applied is whether the man is capable of performing his duty. If it is the case of a man returning from leave, and not being required for duty until the next morning no notice is taken because he is not likely
to cause any trouble, and the wise officer turns a blind eye on him. One of the secrets of discipline is to be able to turn on the blind eye occasionally.
The main test in the case of a bluejacket is whether he is capable of working aloft or on the sails. If he is not, he is drunk. If he is a stoker, the test is whether he is capable of taking care of a fast running engine. If he is a marine, the test is whether he is capable of being put sentry over a broached rum cask, which is an even more severe test. There you have three distinct offences relating to the lower deck hands. Take the case of the motorist. The test ought to be, is he capable of performing his duty, because he has to perform the most intricate and difficult duty. I think an altogether different test is required in the case of the man referred to by the Home Secretary as drunk and disorderly. We know that policemen do not take men into custody when drunk if they are going home quietly, because that would be quite intolerable. Men are not taken into custody when they are walking along quietly and are not a danger to anyone else. But when they interfere with the comfort of others, then quite rightly they are apprehended and taken in charge by the police.
But the case of the motorist is not on all fours with that. I put it that the Home Secretary is taking this action on altogether false grounds, because the word "drunk" is capable of many interpretations on account of its uncertainty, and as the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has already pointed out, doctors often disagree as to whether a man is drunk or not. For these reasons, if the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) presses his Amendment to a division I shall support him, because the case of the motorist is different from that of anyone else. He is in charge of a dangerous vehicle; we want a good definition, and I think the definition of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee is much better, and I shall therefore support it.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think that there is some misunderstanding about this Amendment. As I read it, it is much narrower and not broader than the proposal. The word "drunk" and the phrase "in a state of intoxication" are substantially the same, but the hon.
Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has given to the driver an extra defence, enabling him to say, even although he be in a state of intoxication, that his capacity to act is not impaired. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Dundee wishes to have very drastic legislation against this type of person, surely the Home Secretary's phrase is broader, and not narrower, than that of the hon. Member. I am not an expert on drunkenness, but I, like many others, have had experience of interpreting words, and, whatever the intention of the hon. Member may be, it does seem to mo that under the Bill, once a man is shown to be drunk in charge of a vehicle, he commits an offence, whereas under the Amendment it is not enough to show that he is in a state of intoxication, but you must go on and show that his capacity to act is impaired. Therefore, a man whose capacity to act is not impaired is liable under the Bill, but is not liable under the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Dundee, inadvertently no doubt, has produced an Amendment which is in favour of the drunken motorist.

Mr. MacROBERT: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), but I suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment. Having had some experience of prosecutions, I know full well that these words "whereby his capacity to act is impaired," will be a constant defence, and in many cases the prosecution will forget to prove these vital words and the man will get off I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), and I appeal to the hon. Member for Dundee to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It was put up by a lawyer on the other side.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I think the Home Secretary should pursue his investigations a little further. He gave us the Oxford definition of "intoxication," but he did not give us the definition of "drunk." The Oxford definition is
that has drunk intoxicating liquor to an extent that affects steady self-control: intoxicated, inebriated, overcome by alcoholic liquor.
If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to go a little further, and see that those who have to administer justice understand that, by the Oxford definition, "drunk" is that they have drunk intoxicating liquor "to an extent that affects steady control," it will very largely accomplish what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) desires.

Mr. MORRIS: I agree with the object of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), but I think that that object has been very well stated by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). A man will put this up as a defence, and it will be very difficult to prove that his capacity is impaired, and to secure a conviction at all. It is true that the word "drunk" is very unsatisfactory. We all know the difficulties that result from it at the present time, but I feel that the Amendment, instead of securing the object of the hon. Member, will really defeat it, and, in the circumstances, I hope that he will consent to withdraw it.

Question put, "That the word 'drunk' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 194: Noes, 30.

Division No. 379.]
AYES.
[11.40 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cooper, A. Duff


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')
Briggs, J. Harold
Couper, J. B.


Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. B.
Cove, W. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock Captain M.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnes, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cassels. J. D.
Davies, Or. Vernon


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bennett, A. J.
Christie, J. A.
Dixey, A. C.


Berry, Sir George
Clayton, G. C.
Drewe, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clowes, S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cluse W. S.
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elveden, Viscount


Brass, Captain W.
Connolly, M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston. s.-M.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sitch, Charles H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lunn, William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fleming, D. P.
Macintyre, Ian
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mackinder, W.
Smithers, Waldron


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Snell, Harry


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Grace, John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grotrian, H. Brent
March, S.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Groves, T.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, T. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinne, J. A.


Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartington, Marquess of
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warne, G. H.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Nuttall, Ellis
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Palin, John Henry
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Paling, W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pease, William Edwin
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hilton, Cecil
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Plicher, G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jacob, A. E.
Potts, John S.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Windsor, Walter


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Remnant, Sir James
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Womersley, W. J.


Kennedy, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lamb, J. Q.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.



Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Major Cope and Lord Stanley.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Barr, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Batey, Joseph
Kenyon, Barnet
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Lansbury, George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Briant, Frank
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Cape, Thomas
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Ritson, J.



Day, Colonel Harry
Shiels, Dr Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Smillie, Robert
Mr. Scrymgeour and Mr. Cecil




Wilson.

Mr. CASSELS: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out from the word "vehicle" in line 6 to the word "shall" in line 8.
The object of this Amendment is to remove from this Clause that part which relates to the offence of reckless driving. I understand that we are promised comprehensive legislation next year to deal with motoring offences as a whole, and I suggest that this Clause should be left to deal with the matter to which it substantially relates, namely, that of being drunk in charge of a motor car. I understand
that this Amendment is going to be accepted, and, therefore, I need say no more.

Captain BRASS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I should like to point out that it is suggested in this Bill that the Act of 1903 should be perpetuated. The last Section of the Act of 1903 states that that Act will last until 1906, but it has already lasted until 1925. The point I see in it is that, while reckless driving is
not something that anyone in this House can support in any way at all, the wording of the Act of 1903 is so loose that anyone who exceeds the limit of 20 miles an hour at the present time could be prosecuted for driving recklessly. Sub-section (1) of Section I of the 1903 Act states that
If any person drives a motor car upon a public highway recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time"—
this is the important point—
or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the highway, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
The point is that it is not that the traffic is actually on the road at the time, but that it may reasonably be expected to be on the road. Consequently, anyone who exceeds the speed limit on a certain road when there is no traffic on it at all, might quite easily be prosecuted for reckless driving and be sent to prison for four months under this new clause, when no reckless driving existed at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that this is an Amendment which I can reasonably accept—

Miss WILKINSON: Oh!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I said to the House a few minutes ago, everyone agrees that the offence of driving when drunk is an abominable one, but at present the penalties for reckless driving which as my hon. and gallant Friend (Capt. Brass) has said, is really what is involved here, are fines and also imprisonment for the second and third offence. I think that, while we are engaged in the whole reconstruction of motor-car law, and, as I said just now, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hopes to bring in a Bill to deal with the whole question of motor legislation next year, it would be unfair if I were to single out this one particular offence. I admit that the argument I am using might be used in regard to drunkenness, but that is so exceptional that I think I was entitled to single it out, as it is such a very bad thing; but to single out this particular offence by a motorist, and say we will give imprisonment for four months for the first offence, is not right, pending the reconsideration
of the whole question of motor legislation and the bringing in of a considered Bill by the Minister of Transport. In these circumstances I think that, although the hon. lady (Miss Wilkinson) may have objections, she will realise that her interjection was, perhaps, not very partinent to the argument I am addressing to the House, which is a serious argument, namely, that, as a Bill is going to be brought in, I hope early, during the course of next Session, that I should suddenly come down at the fag end of this Session and increase the penalty so enormously, making it four months' imprisonment for the first offence, is too much. In the circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Captain BENN: I think the House is entitled to be a little surprised that this Amendment, put down by private members, is suddenly accepted in the way it has been, because the Home Secretary no doubt, in what time he can spare from his various prosecutions, has given his best attention to the Bill. Presumably the Government thought it was right to impose, not indeed a certainty of imprisonment, but an additional probability of imprisonment on people who are guilty of this wicked offence, and I think it is shameless for hon. Members opposite to seek to prevent a very slight addition to the penalties for reckless driving. The speed, the number of motor ears, and the danger of motor traffic have enormously increased since the Act of 1903 was passed. I cannot think hon. Members in any part of the House can resist an Amendment which does not say a man who drives recknessly shall necessarily be sent to prison, but merely gives the magistrate an option to send a reckless driver to prison on the first case. I hope hon. Members will divest themselves of mere obedience to the word of command, and vote on the merits, because, speaking quite sincerely, I think the Amendment has no merits and a slight measure of increased rigour, introduced by the Government themselves, has every reason to secure the support of everyone who wants to protect pedestrians and particularly little children in country districts. Everyone who has been in a motor car knows it is not a question of the Act of 1903 or of the amount of traffic that may or may not be on the road. The danger is not one of motor cars in collision.
That is a very serious thing, but to me a much more appealing thing is a little baby that runs out of a cottage gate. That is not traffic on the road. All that is asked by the Government themselves is that the magistrate in such a case shall have the option of imprisonment for a first offence. The right lion. Gentleman said there is no need for such an option. On the merits there is no case for the Amendment, and I trust it will be rejected.

12.0 N.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am always pleased-when the Liberal Party step out of the breach, and express their real opinion, but it is only when they are losing a chance of sending someone to jail. How far is it really genuine on this occasion? The hon. and gallant Gentlemen knows as well as I do that if a man is driving recklessly, and knocks over or kills a child, he is guilty of manslaughter and can be sent to for the first offence. This Clause was brought in for the purpose of dealing with the very exceptional case of a person who is drunk in charge of a motor-car. It was not intended to deal with the whole of motorcar legislation. I ask the House to accept what the Home Secretary has said. No one knows more than I do how bitterly we complain of insufficient discussion of a Bill, but the Government have treated us fairly on this Bill, and it is a bad reward if we are going to take up the time of the House with points like this. The Government have met us on Clause 31 and various other matters. This point can be dealt with already in serious cases under the ordinary law, and as far as details are concerned, they can be dealt with by the proper Bill when it comes before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) invariably rushes in on these occasions to defend personal liberty. I feel sure that he will defend the personal liberty of those whom the hon. Member wishes to put into gaol. I hope the House will not take up time over this very small point.

Miss WILKINSON: I cannot understand why the Home Secretary proposes to leave the population of this country at the mercy of reckless motorists until some Bill, about which we know nothing yet, but which may arrive in the next
session, if the Government is there to bring it in, and we are to wait while the toll of accidents every week grows larger and larger. There are very many more oars on the road to-day than there ever have been before, and there seems to be a complete decay in any kind of motoring manners. You have any young fool in charge of a car dashing round corners, not troubling to sound his horn, dashing in on traffic, and on less experienced drivers. I can speak quite feelingly on the matter. It may not necessarily mean that someone is killed, but a man can go on like that, putting people in peril of their lives and finally landing in a smash-up. It may be his first convicted offence, but he has been offending for a very considerable period before that. People who are in charge of cars ought to be made to realise their responsibility to the unfortunate people who have to use their feet, and that is certainly not the case at present. In my constituency a very great feeling of resentment was caused by a driver like this dashing into a cyclist, leaving him by the road dead and not troubling to stop. These are things that are going on. It is no use people on the other side saying, "Oh!" You only have to pick up your newspaper to see the growth of this type of thing. There are people in charge of cars whom only the real threat of prison will ever make decently responsible. I know there are people for whom no threat is needed, but those are not the people for whom laws are made. A Clause like this is needed for those road hogs who are making our country roads an absolute bugbear for every one. The seconder of the Amendment spoke of roads where there was very little traffic. That again is just the danger. You have long stretches of country road bordered by cottages or farmhouses, and people feel they can speed along at any old miles an hour, and people crossing the road or coming out suddenly, if the horn is not sounded, and it is a very modern silent car, may find themselves in a very serious position. I hope we shall have a Motor Transport Bill. Goodness knows it is very badly needed. In the meantime, what is to be done? Would anything be lost by the Home Secretary having this Clause in his Bill while the other Bill is being prepared? This would give magistrates more power than they have, and it would be a
warning to those in charge of cars driving to the danger of the public. I hope the Home Secretary will not withdraw the Clause, but continue it until such time as we have the other Act.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I wonder if there is any single Member of the House who could get up and honestly say that he has never exceeded the 20 miles speed limit? It seems to me that the whole attitude of certain hon. Member towards the question of motoring is on a wrong basis. You cannot look on the motorist to-day as a single class, and picture him as a rich man in a fur coat, smoking a cigar, as was done 20 years ago. Everybody is a, motorist now. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes. Those who do not go either in private or hired motor cars go in omnibuses or chars-a-banc, and I do not think that many hon. Members opposite would please their constituents if they suggested to them that any bus in which they travelled should not go more than 10 miles an hour in the towns, or that chars-a-banc on which they travel in the country should not go at more than 12 miles an hour.
It is no good being hypocritical about this. We must face the position. In this question of motoring we are all at the present time law breakers, and we shall be law breakers until the law is codified and brought up to date. Every taxi driver, as the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) would emphasise, if he were here—he is with us on this point —and every driver of a commercial vehicle who exceeds a speed of 20 miles an hour is liable under this Section, if two policemen are prepared to swear that he drove dangerously, and if he gets before a bench of magistrates who are not friendly disposed towards motorists he can be sent to prison for four months. Already he can be heavily fined and his licence taken away indefinitely. That seems to me to be a severe penalty for any man who has to get his living by driving a motor car, whether it is a taxi-cab, a motor car or a motor vehicle. I stand up for those who have to earn their living. The private motorists can look after themselves. They can pay fines, they can engage counsel to defend them, and they can afford to appeal. I am thinking of the democracy of motor-
ing, which is growing very much and will continue to grow.
This Clause is most unjust. Every motorist wants to do away with reckless driving. Surely hon. Members will have enough common sense to agree that 90 or 95 per cent. of motorists are not reckless drivers. It is a small percentage who cause the danger, and the great majority of motorists want to do away with that section. But you will never do away with them unless you enlist the support and sympathy of the motoring public as a whole—a public which is expanding every year, and will continue to expand. We must have their support and sympathy, and the support of the associations, commercial or private, which represent them. We must frame legislation in sympathy with the motoring public, business or private, and when we do that we shall be able to get their sympathy, and put down the small minority of reckless drivers.
At the present time every motor driver feels that he has the police against him. We are a law abiding people, and most of us look on the police to help us and protect us, but as soon as we are driving a motor car the policeman is down on us because we drive over 20 miles an hour on the open road, where there is no danger, or over 10 miles an hour in a 10-mile speed limit area, where it is safe to drive 15 miles. While we are doing that the policeman is our enemy.
Until you get the motoring public feeling that the law is framed to prevent reckless driving and not to deal with minor offences, you will never get the motoring public to help you to put down reckless driving. It is for these reasons that I strongly urge the Committee not to be led away by prejudice. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith has been a little unworthy of the skill with which he usually puts forward any case which he has to present. The question of the risk to children has been disposed of by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) [HON. MEMBERS: "NO"]. The ordinary law will deal with any accident where a child, woman or man is injured. This will not strengthen the law in any way in cases of accident. There are penalties for reckless driving. This merely gives magistrates extra power to put people into prison for the first offence on the evidence,
perhaps, of one or two policemen. I hope that the arguments of Hon. Members opposite which might, on the face of them, appear to appeal to our sympathies will not lead the House away from the common-sense point of view. The great motor industry, with the expansion of driving, and everybody using mechanicaly-propelled vehicles, will and must progress, and we must not deal with it in a narrow and petty spirit but in the large way which I hope the Government will adopt in the near future. I am very glad that the Home Secretary has seen his way to accept this sensible Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken represents in the least, the ordinary democratic motors. He says that the motorists' worst foe is the policeman. I sometimes drive a two-seater, and I regard the policeman as my best friend, because he guards me from the reckless motorist who, in my experience, is generally the wealthy motorist with a very high-powered car. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am only giving my own experience as a driver of a low-powered car. In my experience of about seven months or so, the worst offenders are the owners of the very high-powered cars, very expensive cars, who claim the right to the crest of the road, and anyone else can go into the ditch. I have had that experience. We want to be saved from the reckless motorist. The hon. Member has put up the case as if under this Clause any tiny breach of the motoring law would render one liable to be sent to prison. In my experience, as long as a person is driving carefully they are protected by the police. It is only the reckless driver who is caught up.
The whole mass of motorists would welcome this Clause. It is the reckless driver who interferes with the pleasure of people on the road, whether they are driving or walking. The increased number of accidents is due mainly to the minority of motorists, who have no care for anybody else. If the Clause is as silly as has been put forward, why was it originally put in? It is said that this is something quite special—that the case of the drunken motorists is an excrescence on the Bill, and that this is a little further excrescence that has come along. Presumably, it was originally put in because the matter was urgent. We are all agreed
in regard to the drunken motorist; let us be agreed with regard to the reckless motorist. In the interests of the ordinary driver, we must strengthen the law. It is the wealthy driver of a car who does not care; he can pay all the fines that can be imposed upon him. The only person whom this is going to touch is the wealthy road hog, who does not care anything for fines or for other people. I hope that the House will retain this provision.

Mr. PALIN: It is very proper for my hon. Friends on this side to take all steps to protect the lives of little children, and to make road transport safe. I am concerned not about the road hog or those who drive motor cars, but about some 70,000 or 80,000 pople who get their living on the road, workmen who are subject to conditions which may bring them within the law, and get them four months' imprisonment for something over which they have no control. A great many road transport companies allow their drivers a certain limit of time in which to take their goods, say, from Newcastle to Liverpool. No matter what happens on the road they are paid only for a certain amount of time. If the vehicle goes wrong they can repair it in their own time, and if they carry out their instructions there will be frequent infractions of the law if they are to keep their jobs.
The same thing happens in the case of chars-a-bane and motor coach drivers. There are certain time limits within which the journey say, from London to Brighton, has to be done. The company make no allowance for any delays that have to take place. They know that the drivers will break the law if they adhere to the schedule. From that point of view alone an ample case could be made out before there is any legislation upon this subject. I am a firm believer in the principle that prevention is a great deal better than cure. The fact that you send a person to gaol for four months does not restore life, but a great many safeguards could be included in such a Bill as the Minister of Transport has promised to-day. Not only could there be co-operation between the Law Officers of the Crown and the Transport Officers of the Crown, but also those organisations such as the organised road transport workers could suggest proper safeguards such as we find in some parts of the country which may prevent a child
getting on the roads. I think in all the circumstances that the Home Secretary should be committed to withdraw this Clause so that the matter may be further considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The point made by the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) is a very good argument in favour of hon. gentlemen opposite. It was brought up by an important deputation which waited on the Home Secretary last year. We were accompanied by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass), who is well known as an advocate of the speedy motorist.

Captain BRASS: I emphasised the fact that I was very much against any reckless driving. My hon. and gallant Friend will bear me out in that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I said the "speedy" motorist. However, I gather that the hon. and gallant Member is not a champion of the speedy motorist, though, judging by his questions, he seemed to be attacking the police, and I found it necessary to complain to the Home Secretary against these attacks. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not observe that I was in the House, as in that event he might not have given way on this Amendment. The hon. Member for Newcastle has raised a point which must be cleared up. You have the employer who makes his men run to schedule. I have taken the trouble to go into this matter. I have consulted a great many men who work for their living on the road. These men are actually fined, and if they are late and if anything occurs the real culprit escapes and these men go to prison. It is the unfortunate driver and not the real breaker of the law who suffers. That is a very unfair state of the law, and I hope that, when the Bill is brought in next year, that will be remedied though what sort of reception it will get after the speeches made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and others, I cannot say. I hope that this matter will be carefully legislated for so as to deal with the growing evil of the char-a-banc companies in many parts of the country and of the commercial vehicle owners. But I am astonished when the hon. Member for West Newcastle says that steps should be taken
to keep the children off the road. They have no proper gardens and the road is the only place where they can play.

Mr. PALIN: I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to misrepresent me. But there are certain safeguards that can be adopted to prevent children getting suddenly on to the road such as having a fence so that they may be protected when they run clown steep places, side roads leading to main motor roads, and so on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is a different proposition. But we do not want to have to tie children by a rope to the front garden fence. The children have a right to be on the road and the pedestrian has a right to be on the road. It is the King's highway, but now apparently it belongs to the motorist. I think that the mind of the representatives of the motorist has been expressed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. When I went with the hon. Member to see the Home Secretary on this matter of improving the law, I had a great many letters from all over the country. But the hon. Member apparently is going to object just as strongly to this clause being in the new Bill. The reason for accepting this Amendment is said to be next year's Bill. It is said that we are to have a Bill which will include this Clause and therefore, it is not necessary to deal with it now.

Sir F. MEYER: In the new Bill there will be a definition of reckless driving, and I shall be only too pleased to have a proper Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The definition with which we are dealing, which is given in section (1), sub-section (1) of the Motor Car Act, 1903, says that if a person drives a motor car on the public highway, recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and so on, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. If the Government can improve on that, which is in a Conservative Act, apparently they will have opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for West Yarmouth said, "We are motorists and the police are against us, they are our enemies." He is one of the members of the party of law and order. I wonder whether the great heads of the Communist party in Moscow have
really mended their ways and secretly enlisted the sympathies of hon. Members opposite? It would, perhaps, be much more effective. Then he complains that a conviction can be obtained on the small evidence of one or two police constables. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."] No, he said "one or two." Since when does the party opposite impugn the veracity of police constables? Apparently when the police constables arrest members of their own class.

Captain BRASS: The point is that the police have never driven cars, and do not know at what rate a car is going.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That does not tally with the suggested democratisation of motoring. The hon. Member does not accept the veracity of the police, but their evidence can be accepted when it is against working men. The Home Secretary will bear me out when I say that in the present state of the law the policeman's task is often very difficult. The police throughout the country are carrying out their duties towards motorists in a very careful and sympathetic way, and I do not think it is right to talk of them as the "enemies" of the motorist. I have read to the House the definition of reckless driving. I challenge the Home Secretary to improve on this definition next year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take administrative action at once after what the hon. Member for West Newcastle-on- Tyne (Mr. Palin) has said, and what was said by a deputation last summer about employers who forced their employés, in driving commercial vehicles, to break the law. I hope that that matter will be taken up very seriously by the Home Secretary. I can see that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe is going to fight any tightening of the law against reckless motorists. This is a little piece on account, and hon. Members opposite are going to resist it. This Clause gives the option of ordering imprisonment of a man who is so skilful that, while being a very nuisance and scandal on the roads, is fortunate enough not to damage life or limb. You can get that man under this Clause. It is a great pity that the Home Secretary has allowed himself to be browbeaten by his supporters.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: We have just been entertained by the usual kind of tirade
from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). His speech has been amusing, though he tried to preach the class war from the Liberal Benches. The speech was amusing as an attack on the aristocracy by an hon. Member who himself, in the course of nature, will go to another place. Unfortunately he seems to have entirely missed speaking about any acts which are relevant to this issue. The whole point is that, although there is a certain amount of dispute in Courts as to whether an individual is drunk or not, yet on the whole, looking at it from the point of view of the magistrate hearing the evidence, it is fairly easy, comparatively, to come to a decision with regard to that point and not to convict people unjustly. With regard to reckless driving, the matter is very much more difficult. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have been in, or witnesses of, a motor accident. They may be certain that each side in that accident immediately starts to say that the other side was driving recklessly. In every case that gets into the County Court, the same thing is said. The difficulty in accepting the evidence is enormous, and the danger of wrongful conviction is very great.
Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it would be right for hon. Members on this side to be wrongfully convicted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is exactly the kind of feeling I would have expected from them. It would give them pleasure to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe wrongfully convicted. Out of their mouths shall their charity be judged. The whole point is that the danger of wrongful
conviction is so great, that it is not right to put into the hands of two magistrates sitting together the right to send a man to prison without the option of a fine, to force him to appeal and get the conviction quashed at Quarter Sessions at the cost of very great mental agony and strain. That, surely, is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. If you get the law ahead of public opinion, as in America, the law will be brought into contempt. We must wait until we get the motoring law brought up to date, get offences properly defined, and then there will be no one in the motoring world who will object to serious penalties when the Jaw is broken.

Mr. MACKINDER: I suggest very seriously that the Home Office would not have asked for this Clause to be inserted unless there were some real and specific reason why it should be in the Bill. When a drunken man is in charge of a car on the highway, the public is in very great danger that he may drive that car. I have a very strong feeling of dislike of the motorist who is in possession of the car on the highway. I suggest to hon. Members that if there is a motor oar, and a drunken man in possession of it, there is every likelihood that he will drive it, and if he drives it there is every likelihood of an accident. Prevention is better than cure. That man should be fined for being in charge of a. car which he is not fit to drive.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That argument is relevant to one of the other Amendments.

Mr. MACKINDER: I understand that the proposal of the Home Secretary is to withdraw the whole Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. May I explain that I have accepted the penalty for drunkenness.

Mr. MACKINDER: There has been great stress laid on reckless driving, consisting of speeding. I would like the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe on this subject. The point is that reckless driving consists mainly of speeding. I suggest that any person found going round a corner where a white line is marked at an undue speed should be convicted of reckless driving. The white line is placed there to ensure that a reasonable speed is observed going round the corner. The driver knows that he cannot go round and keep within the white line, unless he is travelling at a reasonable speed, and any driver exceeding a reasonable speed ought to be prosecuted. I hail with a great deal of pleasure, as a user of the road, the introduction of the white line at various parts of the highway. I hope it will be more extensively used and that any who disregard its use will be convicted of reckless driving. I hope the Home Secretary will allow us to vote upon the Clause and I for one shall certainly support it.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I am not myself a motorist. I am simply one of the public. It has been said that to the
motorist people are divided into two classes— "the quick and the dead." At present I am one of the quick. I only rise to say that the hon. baronet the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) does not express my opinion in what he has said regarding police. The police are the enemies only of the lawbreakers, and the policeman is only doing his duty if he arrests or brings to justice anybody who is breaking the law, whether motorist or anybody else, and I strongly deprecate that any Member of this House should talk about the police as my hon. Friend has talked about them. This is the place where the laws are made and we ought to have respect for the law and for all the people who administer it from the judge to the policeman. I support the omission of this part of the Clause because, as one who has had as much experience of these cases in the courts, I think, as anybody else, I can assure hon. Members opposite who take such a strong view that the question of what is reckless driving is extraordinarily difficult to decide. I venture to say that if 50 of the hon. Members sitting opposite were to hear a case of alleged reckless driving, 25 would come to the conclusion that it was reckless driving and the other 25, on the same evidence, would come to the conclusion that it was not reckless driving. I think it is a very strong step to empower two magistrates—very often gentlemen who give their services to the country, but who are quite without training in the matter of weighing evidence— to convict a man who is driving a motor lorry and send him to prison for four months for a first offence on what is very often simply a matter of opinion.

Mr. MARCH: I support the removal of this portion of the Clause as one who has had some road experience. I have driven on the road myself for 25 years before becoming an official of the organisation of the men who are now driving on the road, and I desire a consolidation of the laws and regulations relating to the use of the road. I think some of my hon. Friends here do not quite understand the position. The road law is split up among so many different Acts of Parliament that one can scarcely get at it. The Ministry of Transport is the proper body to bring forward road regulations and they should introduce a comprehensive Measure instead of having them in the present complicated
state spread over different parts of different Acts. If these regulations were unified it would be beneficial not only to the drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles, but to foot passengers as well. We are all desirous of preventing accidents on the road and of preventing any people from monopolising the road. Reference has been made to the white line as though it is going to prevent drivers from occupying more than a certain share of the road at corners. I would point out that we are now getting on the roads very large mechanically propelled vehicles, quite different from the fast two-seaters to which reference has been made. We are now getting six-wheeled vehicles which require careful working round corners and we must have wider roads if the driver is to have an opportunity of keeping within the line. I hope that matter will be provided for in the Bill which is to be brought forward by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. HARDIE: I wish to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to a matter concerning the action of the authorities who control the use of postal vans. In Glasgow, recently, there have been four serious accidents, and I have had to communicate with the Postmaster-General in regard to them. In the ordinary course the drivers of these vans would have been taken up and the owners of the vans would have got into trouble, but in the case of the Post Office no action can be taken since the Crown cannot be sued. This is not the fault of the men driving the vans. If there is a late arrival of a train at one of the terminal stations in Glasgow the driver has to make a dash with the mails—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that if the driver cannot be sued, the matter is not relevant to this Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: I am speaking of the owners, and I am pointing out the position which arises if any Government Department is to be allowed to do what it likes in this respect. I wish the Home Secretary to take this matter up and to direct the attention of the proper authorities to it, and if there are not regulations to deal with the matter, I hope that in consideration for the public some steps will be taken.

Mr. THURTLE: I think this is a very brazen Amendment, and I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) should be supporting it. He is the champion of the motorists who own high-powered cars, and he has sought to extend their license at the expense of the liberty of the ordinary pedestrian.

Captain BRASS: I have not done anything of the kind.

Mr. THURTLE: I leave that to the House. I have a lively recollection of the hon. and gallant Member having taken upon himself the work of propaganda in order to increase the powers of motorists and decrease the ordinary liberties of the people. An hon. Member opposite has said that we on this side want to get motorists convicted unfairly. We do not want to do anything of the kind. We do want to see that when they are convicted they shall be properly punished. The proposal which the Home Secretary declines seeks to impose what I think is a reasonable penalty. After all, what is a fine to the well-to-do motorists? They can pay any amount in the way of money without feeling it at all seriously; but when it comes to a matter of imprisonment, they are very much more reluctant to face that kind of punishment. I am sorry my hon. Friend on my right supports this proposal, because from my knowledge of the working people—and I come into contact with them much more closely than do hon. Members opposite—I can say that they really resent the way in which more and more the motorists of this country are arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to the roads. The ordinary people, and children especially, have to scuttle like rabbits time after time when high-powered cars come along, with a quite reckless disregard of the interests of these ordinary people, and this proposal that they should suffer four months' imprisonment is not, in my opinion, adequate. I would like the see the four months' imprisonment made four months' hard labour, and people who commit the offence of reckless driving, and thereby endanger the lives of their fellow citizens, ought to be made to enjoy the privilege of picking oakum.
We are often told in this House that there is not a class war on. Listening to this discussion this morning, I could not
help feeling what a clear illustration it was of the fact that there is a class war on, because, in the main, this discussion has been looked at by hon. Members opposite from the point of view of the wealthy motor owners.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Colonel Day?"] There are one or two exceptions on this side, but in the main the Members on this side are looking at it from the point of view of the great mass of the people, who do not own motorcars, and are never likely to, until we get a more equitable system of society.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What has this to do with four months' imprisonment?

Mr. THURTLE: I cannot understand why it is that the Home Secretary has made this concession. It seems to me that he has been guilty of a gross betrayal of the rights of the ordinary pedestrian public, and I think there must have been very powerful influences brought to bear to influence him in this way. I cannot help thinking, for instance, that his friend the noble lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has had something to do with this particular decision, because there are members of the public about, including the Noble Lord, who like to go along the roads at a very high rate of speed, and who do not wish to have adequate penalties imposed upon them if their going along at a high rate of speed endangers the safety of the general public. I protest very strongly on behalf of the ordinary people, the people who have a right to walk across the roads, and the people whose children have a right, as they have nowhere else to play, to play upon the roads, against the Home Secretary agreeing to this proposal and not making the punishment for reckless driving properly fit the crime.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to protest very emphatically against the right hon. Gentleman's method of treating the business which we have had to handle in the Committee. He has judicially presented his view that it was absolutely essential to take both of those factors with which we have been dealing, the two types of Amendments, dealing with separate circumstances, and he has judicially arrived at the conclusion that in both cases it was imperative to tighten
up the penalties. Ho has severely condemned the man who is termed drunk, and said it is a very bad crime, whether it is in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening. It is a process that is arrived at simply by intoxication. But with this particular Amendment you have a man in full sobriety, who knows, or ought to know, what he is doing, and he is pursuing a course recognised by the law as utterly objectionable and calling for additional penalties.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is making a personal attack upon myself in regard to something I said in Committee, I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage on the Bill, and the discussion on this Amendment, and I was not present that day.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Of course, I was not referring to a particular quotation from yourself. What I was referring to was the fact that your Department—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) must really address me.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I accept the correction, but I am endeavouring to clear up what apparently is a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. As a Member of the Committee I had to do with a Bill presented by the Home Office, and on some occasions we had the Homo Secretary, and at other times we had the Under-Secretary present, and one or other was dealing with that Bill. Certainly the Department was supporting the Clause, naturally enough, with which we are dealing now. Pressure was put on to drop the previous Amendment, with which we have dealt already in the House, and here again we find that additional pressure has been brought to bear to cut out that particular phase of it where there is no excuse for talking about intoxication at all, but where there is complete sobriety; and you find hon. Members on the other side deliberately standing up to the position that there ought not to be imposed these additional penalties. I submit that that points more clearly than ever to what the country is feeling, namely that the powerful influences that are behind those who utilise the majority of those cars over the coun-
try that are speeding at such a terrific rate are of such a nature that we are going to have the greatest difficulty in protecting human life in the country. The fact that the Home Secretary is now, whether he did in Committee or not, announcing his acceptance of this Amendment proves what I am saying, that all the time there is the influence, and we hope it will be defeated in the Lobby today.

Mr. POTTS: In the interests of the public at large, let me say that, as a matter of knowledge and experience, on the King's highway to-day it is always a question of the public having to jump out of the way of the motor car, or else being killed or injured. What I want to put to the Home Secretary is this: Is it not a fact that, under the 1835 Highway Act, the public have a prior claim to the highway to that of the vehicles, and in case of danger, is it not the case, strictly in law, that the vehicles ought to pull up for the safety of persons travelling on the highway? If that be so, will the Home Secretary issue instructions to the authorities to have that carried out in the country, which will prevent accidents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member put the law a little too far.

I think the public have an equal right with a. vehicle on the highway.

Mr. POTTS: I will put the question again. The Home Secretary is trying to get away from the point. Is it not a fact that in law the public have the prior claim -never mind equal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have just said I think they have not. The Law Officers of the Crown are not here, but I believe my answer is correct. Now may I ask hon. Members to come to a decision? We have got on so far without having to ask for the Closure. We have had a very fair discussion of this matter, and I appeal to the House to come to a decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to delay the proceedings. The point I wish to put is, whether there is any means of obtaining the attendance of the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right of speaking.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 183.

Division No. 380.]
AYES.
[12.59 p.m.


Adamson, Ht. Hen. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Waiter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Barr, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Hum, Plaistow)


Briant, Frank
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Bromfield, William
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Buchanan, G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Clowes, S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J,R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Cluse, W. S.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Day, Colonel Harry
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John
Charles Edwards.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southward, N.)




NOES.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Grace, John
Pease, William Edwin


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Capt. W. D 'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Bennett, A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remnant, Sir James


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Lamb, J. Q.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cassels, J. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Christie, J. A.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clayton, G. C.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cooper, A. Duff
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry Deans, R.


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macintyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dixey, A. C.
March, S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Drewe, C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Elveden, Viscount
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forrest, W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nuttall, Ellis



Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Owen, Major G.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Goff, Sir Park
Palin, John Henry
Margesson.


Question, "That line 13 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 40. — (Prohibition on taking photographs, etc., in Court.)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I have a number of other Amendments to this particular Clause, but I am not going to move them. I simply content myself with moving to leave out the Clause. I will do so in as few words as possible in order that we may get an explanation from the Home Secretary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I should like to ask,
in view of the ruling of your predecessor, whether my hon. Friends beside me and myself can safeguard our position in relation to one or two Amendments that follow that we propose to move?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): There will be no difficulty about that.

Captain BENN: On a further point of Order. I gather that on the Clause you are unwilling to exclude certain Amendments that are on the Paper.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: They will be safeguarded.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have decided, in return for the Home Secretary taking out Clause 31, to give the Government every assistance in passing through this Clause without undue obstruction. It is on this ground that I have decided not to move subsequent Amendments. Clause 40 makes it a penal offence for anybody to take a photograph or sketch in any Court or within the precincts of the Court. I wish to enter my protest against the manufacture of fresh offences and fresh excuses to send people to prison. We are going on year by year making fresh crimes. To my mind that is the last thing that Parliament should do. Is it a crime to take a picture of a defendant or other person who may be in Court? It may be very undesirable from the point of view of the person whose picture is taken, but if persons go to law, and come before the public, it seems to me that the public as a whole has just as much right to have a photograph as to have their lives dealt with, or an account of their career put into the public Press. We who are in politics are accustomed to have all sorts of private details about our lives published. We are accustomed to see as photographs the most villainous libels, and we have to put up with it. Why, then, should not these people who are defendants in Court, and in notorious cases, have to put up with what ordinary politicians have to put up with? If you are going to make this a crime, you are going to have all sorts of petty persecution of people. You are going to have an enormous number of additional causes of offence against the law of England, and this seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I protest against this habit of trying to censor the Press, and of interference with the right of everybody to do what they think fit and proper in these cases which come before the Courts. This habit of grandmotherly legislation in the interests of what is said to be morality seems to me to be a very unfortunate development of modern times.

Mr. MORRIS: I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). This is sheer
grandmotherly legislation. I fail to understand what distinction can be drawn between the publication of the photographs of these people in the Courts, and the publication of the account of the trials. It is to be an offence to take or attempt to take, in any Court or the precincts of the Court, any photograph or sketch and so on, but what does "precincts of the Court" mean? It is quite possible that a newspaper editor may obtain photographs of judges and other officials for publication. Will this be within the "precincts" of the Court? Clearly this is a new offence which is objectionable. It does not meet the worst part of the case, which is where a man has been a party to some offence which is sufficient to make him notorious, and then for a newspaper to ask him to write an account of it, pay him a handsome sum for doing so, and publish his photograph along with the letterpress. You may have an offence of that sort going scot free, while in another case there is punishment. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to point out in this case there is no power to send anybody to prison in a general way. It is intended to apply to people who are making a living out of some or other public trial. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter very carefully, and not be led away by what hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have said about the rights of the subject and so forth. As to the case of Members of Parliament I do not suggest that they are lacking in the sense of modesty in a matter of this kind, but we willingly come before the public, and are accustomed to come before the public, and so possibly get our photographs occasionally in the papers. Some of us like it. Really, however, where the matter is serious is where you have to persuade people to come into Court for the purpose of defending their rights, and I can assure hon. Members that a large number of people, both men and women, are terrified to come into the Court because their photographs or a sketch of them are likely to be put in the various papers. They go to Court and you subsequently see photographs of them with their hands in front
of faces showing their objection to it. I can tell the House, in my own experience, that this really is a thing which is interfering with the courts of justice at the present time. If a man or a woman desires to be photographed there are plenty of studios to go to or there is the studio of the newspaper which wants the photograph I am speaking now with reference to the cause of Justice. So far as the Committee upstairs was concerned there was not the sightest objection raised to this Clause, and it would appear to me that sometimes the necessity for this Clause is not quite realised. After all, is it not really pandering to a not very high-class taste to have in the newspapers photographs of eminent counsel going into court in whatever costume they may happen to be in? Some of us do not mind it. It is a form of gratuitous advertisement to which some of us have no objection, but is it really very necessary that the public should have a photograph of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) going to the Law Courts?

Mr. CASSELS: This does not stop it.

Mr. RAWLINSON: It goes a little way towards it.

Mr. CASSELS: It is only a photograph taken in court.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid it will be stopped in future. It will be an infringement of the personal liberty of my hon. and learned Friend. As he is going into the court with his red bag to conduct his case, the photographer will not be allowed to snapshot him.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: It does not apply to counsel. You will be exempt.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Perhaps that privilege still remains. But what I ask the House to do is to consider the feelings of people who really are deterred from coming forward to give evidence, who are caused genuine pain by having their photographs published far and wide, and in the interests of justice I hope this Clause will be allowed to go through. I am not speaking of the details of it, but, taken as a whole, it is a much-needed
Clause and it was passed unanimously in Committee.

Mr. BROAD: I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to this Clause. It may not be very disconcerting to those of us who are in the public gaze to know, when we are speaking on a public platform, that someone is sketching us, or that we may hear the click of cameras; but I do not think it fair that those who are not used to being in the public view, and who are in court at a time of great strain, should be disconcerted by the knowledge that people are sketching them. It is for them an occasion when they need all their mentality, and when they have to go to court they ought to be preserved from any sort of molestation or annoyance, even when they are entering the court. I remember how I felt when I first came into the public gaze, in a very small way —though I was not on trial at the time. People who are going to court are disturbed by the thought that there will be a heap of photographers dodging in front of them. It must be very disconcerting to them, and it will be some time before they can recover their mental equanimity.
Further, I do not think it is in keeping with the dignity of the court that it should be used as a studio. If we are to allow this sort of thing to go on in law courts, why should we not allow it in the galleries of the House of Commons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some of us might be quite ready for it, but I think the thing would be coming very close home to us: we should not feel that it added to the dignity of the House if some of the speakers and orators were posing with the idea of having their photographs taken or of their being sketched. Even when this House is not sitting people have to obtain permission to take photographs here, and it is the same in all our public buildings, and why should there be exemption in a court of law, where there ought to be dignity and calm? I hope the Home Secretary will stick to his clause. I would like to see it go a little further, but I am not going to deal with that at the moment.

Captain BENN: I think it is time somebody stood up to protest against the creation of new offences. Apparently the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) would make it also an offence, punishable by a fine of £50, for anyone to
sketch in the gallery here. It is, I believe, forbidden by regulations; but I should never vote for making it a new and punishable offence for anyone to make a sketch from the Press gallery or take a photograph from the other gallery. It is a mistake to suppose that it is our duty cheerfully to create new offences, unless some public good is served by so doing. In this particular case we achieve nothing at all by this Clause— except in the case of witnesses—and I admit there is something in the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). There have been unpleasant cases in which witnesses may have been deterred from coming forward by the fear that their photographs would appear in the newspapers, and that no doubt is an argument for this Clause; but there must be some limit. We had the "Mr. A" case, where an attempt was made to conceal the identity of one of the parties in the case. It must be recognised that there are certain penalties of publicity involved in the ordinary public administration of justice. As a rule, the name of the witness is given and there is a certain amount of publicity, and we must weigh up the disadvantages that this may bring in exceptional cases against the grave disadvantage of creating a new Press law, with new offences not yet heard of. As my hon. and learned Friend said, this does not deal with the most objectionable form of, I will not say offence, but Press behaviour. There is a Bill promoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil), called the Judicial Proceedings Reports Bill. The Home Secretary does not find time for that, he does not find time to interfere with those disgusting articles from men who, in some cases, have even been condemned. What he does is to draw up a most amazing list of offences and say that newspapers shall be subject to a fine of £50 if they commit them.
What are some of these offences? Photographs must not be taken in Court. I understand, though of course eminent legal authorities will correct me. that Judges now forbid and prevent photographs being taken in Court, if it becomes a nuisance. Further, anyone who attempts to take them will be penalised. In this House hon. Members may sketch
during the course of a Debate. There is one notorious and very gifted offender. If the hon. Member for Edmonton extended this restriction to the House of Commons, as he indicated his desire to do, he would bring his colleague within the net. Then, again, it is to be an offence to publish such a photograph. But who is to know where the photograph is obtained? A Judge's photograph, for instance, might have been obtained from a private photographer. The difficulty as to origin would be much more pronounced in the case of a sketch. If I may say so, with great respect to the newspaper Press, I sometimes doubt whether everything that is "sketched in Court" has been sketched in Court. A man in the office may make a drawing from a photograph which he had procured from an ordinary photographer—make a sketch of the Court, draw a picture of the Judge and indicate roughly other figures; but it is very doubtful whether, under paragraph (b) the newspaper would not be subject to a fine of £50 if it published the sketch.

Mr. GROTRIAN: He can sketch as much as he likes, provided he does not do it with a view to publishing the sketch.

Captain BENN: My contention is that a, newspaper artist, in the seclusion of his own study, might make a drawing of the Court from knowledge he had obtained during a casual visit, and a drawing of the Judge obtained from photographs obtained from ordinary public sources, and that if published it would apparently be an offence. How are you to tell whether the sketch or the photograph was made in Court or not? A great many of these drawings are made up after visits from material outside the Court, and they are not made on the spot at all. Is it to be laid down that no one inside or outside a Court is to be allowed to produce the image of a magistrate, or coroner, OT the Judge, or a picture of the Court? With great respect to magistrates and coroners, I cannot see that that is a thing which ought to be made an offence, and, although it might be an offence against artistic taste, it is not a great moral offence to reproduce the features of the Judge or witnesses. If it related to the publication of the degrading and demoralising sort of stuff pub-
lished in some of our newspapers I should support it, but that is not the case. I think there are quite enough offences already, and I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider the question of proceeding with this Clause at this particular moment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken would have made that speech, unless it was on a Friday afternoon—

Captain BENN: Why do you say that?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Because I believe it.

Captain BENN: It is a very strange creed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to place it upon a somewhat higher ground. This is a perfectly serious Clause which was introduced into the Bill last year by the Labour Government. It was not in the Bill of 1923, but it was introduced by the Labour Government last year, and when I came into office and saw it I thought it was such a good Clause that I included it in this Bill. There really are good reasons for the introduction of this Clause because I fear that the taking of photographs of people in Court has become an added terror to the administration of justice. It has been my duty to consult some of the Judges and those responsible for the administration of justice on this question, and I can assure the House that, particularly in criminal trials, it is a monstrous abuse of the rights of the Press to sketch and put in such things as the pictures of the widow or the mother of the man who is being tried for his life. Naturally under those circumstances the mother or the wife of the prisoner wants to go into the Court to see her husband tried, and if she docs this she has to run the risk of being pilloried in the newspapers as the wife or mother of the prisoner, and this is not fair. Why should the prisoner be subject to such a thing, because he may turn out to be quite innocent, and yet he will find that he has been pilloried as someone charged with a horrible crime, although he may be acquitted?

Mr. MORRIS: Why not extend this provision to the private photographer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not a pleasant thing to be a witness either in a coroner's court or a criminal court, but it is necessary that these people should go there in the interests of justice in order to give evidence. But in addition to this they are now subject to the risk of having their photographs published in the newspapers. With regard to what has been said about this practice in connection with divorce eases, I do not think that the society woman going through the divorce court really objects to it, but the poor person feels very strongly about it. This Clause has been put in after much consideration, and the Government believe it is in the interests of the whole community, and I believe the Press are prepared to accept it. I know there is another Amendment suggesting the omission of the words "or in the precincts of the building." I agree that you cannot prevent every photographer taking photographs of witnesses going to or leaving the court, but when they are crossing the pavement leading to the court there ought to be the sanctity of the court to protect them. I ask all sides of the House to declare in favour of this Clause, which I am sure is not only in the best interests of the administration of justice, but is also likely to promote the well-being of the people as a whole.

Mr. MacLAREN: I do not think this Clause will achieve the object which the Home Secretary has in view. As it now stands, even the Home Secretary admits that it is possible for a person to be photographed far removed from the precincts of the Court, and if that is done the publicity we wish to guard against will still take place. I agree that there is nothing more revolting than to pick up a newspaper and find in it a lot of morbid photographs of all sorts of poor and popular persons, but my point is that I do not think the publicity we wish to guard against is removed by the operation of this Clause, and it should be made more drastic. No paper should be allowed to publish a photograph of anyone involved in a Court action, and unless you make such a provision, you will not get the protection which is sought by this Clause.
I will give another illustration. Suppose I went into a Law Court and took up a piece of paper and put down a few
Pitman signs, and then I go outside and connect these signs and I get my finished sketch. If a person in the Court made a few notes of that kind on a piece of paper, would he be liable under this Clause? There are quite a number of ways in which an artist can ride through any part of this Clause. Of course if I had my way with regard to some of these photographs I should not hesitate in throwing the newspaper-containing them in the Thames, but, I think it would be more effective if the Homo Secretary was more drastic with the whole of the Press, and prohibited them from publishing photographs or sketches of any person involved in a case in the Courts. Under this Clause there will be some difficulty in proving whether the sketch or photograph was produced inside or outside the Court, and the words proposed will not effect the object of the Clause.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask the Home Secretary to elucidate the Clause for us? So far as I can gather, there is nothing in it to prevent people getting a photograph of the widow of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Does Sub-section (1, b) cover that? It says
publish any photograph, portrait, or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this Section or any reproduction thereof.
Does that mean that a person will not be allowed to go to the house of a witness in a case and photograph her or sketch her, or if she be a society woman, going to a Court photographer and getting her photograph? We all know that there is a big business done in these photographs. They are taken and brought out and bought, and, if the subject of one of them, does some notorious or criminal action the photograph can be used. I see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea (Captain Viscount Curzon) smiling, but I do not mean him at all. Is there anything to prevent that, because, if not, what is the use of this Clause? You could drive a coach and horses through this Clause. I think the law at present is that the judge may prohibit sketching or photographing, and that is a much better state of affairs. It is better than saying that there shall be no photographing or sketching and no portraits of any kind under a penalty of
£50. There may be cases where the publishing of photographs is a helpful deterrent. Certain people who misbehave themselves deserve to have their photographs published. Again, in some cases it may be the means of tracing a criminal. The possibility of publishing portraits of people who have committed crimes against society may be a very useful deterrent. If the Government would tackle the problem of the publication of salacious details of cases there would be something in it, but this is really straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel as long as the details of horrible cases are permitted to be published. There is no harm in a photograph or portrait, but there is harm in reading matter which a. small child or young person can get hold of, and, if the Government would tackle that problem, they would be doing something useful. I must say that I think this is a quite unnecessary Clause, and I would ask for an explanation, at any rate, on those two points.

Mr. LANSBURY: At first, I was inclined to vote with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) against this Clause, but I shall now vote for it, simply because it is a very weak, halting, and faltering step in the right direction. This is another sample of the cowardice of Governments—I will not discriminate between Governments—in dealing with the Press, when the Press take up an attitude on a particular question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Aston Division (Sir E. Cecil) introduced a Bill dealing in an effective manner with a growing evil of our time, namely, the pernicious and outrageous manner in which rich men get richer by retailing filth day by day and every Sunday. It is perfectly monstrous the sort of stuff that is retailed out in what is called the popular Press. You talk about Bolshevism and any other ism, but it is nothing compared with the moral degradation that is caused by this literature, and no Government dare tackle it. You are tackling here just the fringe of the question, but in my judgment the rich well-to-do purveyors of filth do not mind this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has consulted them, and they do not mind it in the least.
The real difficulty and the real danger to the community—the publication of
filth—is to go on. All the stories that are raked up about a man or a woman against whom a charge may be levied is to go on untouched. Directly a person is charged, especially with some revolting kind of murder, every sort of sordid, bestial detail is raked up like filthy muck rakers going over a heap of muck, and published in the Press, and no one in this House has the courage—I will not say no one, but no Government—to deal with it. We talk very often about religion and the teaching of religion and education and all the rest of it, but it would be better that our children could not read than that they should read this muck served up for them day after day and every Sunday. I should like to feel that the right hon. Gentleman would develop the same energy and the same courage and the same devotion to what he considers high principle in regard to this matter that he has in regard to Communist and Bolshevist agitation in this country. There are certain things in life which we all ought to hold pretty sacred, and one is the mind of the little child; and both pictures and letter press that are published in this country are so foul that if I had my way I would take the people who make huge fortunes out of the retailing of such muck and put them into penal servitude for the rest of their lives. Such things ought not to be received either in this House, in a court of law, or anywhere else where decent men and women congregate.

Mr. TINKER: I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. All the arguments I have heard to-day have been, not against this particular Clause, but against its weakness--that it ought to go further. But the law has to make a start. Let us see how this works, and, if it be necessary that it should go further, there can be further legislation to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere. Therefore, I would suggest that this Amendment should not be pressed. Let us try and keep the Court of Justice a bit cleaner than many other places are. I do not think it right that a witness, or even a criminal, should be subjected to being photographed in court at all, and I would again ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment and let the Clause pass.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would ask the courtesy of the House to allow me to make a reply to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is quite true that this does not prevent the publication of the photographs of witnesses taken before they arrive in Court. We have no power to do that. That is also the reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who accuses me of not dealing with that side of the newspapers. This, however, is a Bill dealing with the administration of criminal justice, and these matters would be entirely outside its scope. All I can do is, in dealing with the administration of criminal justice, to prevent the obtaining of photographs in a court or in the precincts of a court. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member was that the Judge already had power to prevent it. I believe that Judges do claim the power to prevent it by means of threatening proceedings for contempt of court. The hon. and gallant Member knows what that means. First of all, the Judge is to have his attention distracted from the case to watch whether any person is taking photographs, and, quite obviously, it is not possible for him to deal with anything that takes place outside the court itself. These pictures, of course, are often taken when the person is entering or leaving the court.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Magistrates have no power at all to prevent it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is so. After the explanation I have given, I trust that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will respond to the appeal of his followers, and withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 33, line 14, to leave out the words "or attempt to."
I think the Home Secretary might meet us in this case, and I hope, also, that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) will support me on this mater. I think it is too wide altogether to make it an offence to attempt to do a certain thing, and I think the Home Secretary might accept this and meet the objections which have been
put forward quite seriously against this part of the Bill.

Captain BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: It would be impossible to accept such an Amendment as this, because, if a man snapshotted two or three times in court, it would not be enough merely to prove that he did that; you would have to prove that a photograph was actually taken. It might be that the camera might fail to act, and in that case no photograph would be taken. The mere fact of anyone attempting to take a photograph by snapping a camera in court is obviously the offence, because it is impossible to prove that anything happened as a result of the snapshot.

Captain BENN: May I ask whether we are going to have a reply from the Home Secretary?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seconded the Amendment.

Captain BENN: Formally.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All I have to say as Home Secretary is that I accept every word of my right hon. Friend's reply.

Captain BENN: The courteous but elusive—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the seconding of an Amendment, even though it be formal, does not exhaust the right of the Seconder to speak further?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, the seconding of an Amendment does exhaust the right to speak. I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to ask a question.

Captain BENN: On that point of Order. I understood that in the old days the raising of the hat to indicate a formal Motion did not exhaust the right to speak. Inasmuch as the practice of wearing hats in the House has now passed away, is it not the case that a mere assent to the seconding of a Motion does not exhaust the right to speak? I put the point to you, Sir, as it is of great importance to private Members.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the seconding of an Amendment exhausted the right to speak afterwards.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out line 32.
This would leave out the words
registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner.
I think it is going too far to include these, and is really putting the dignity of the judiciary rather too high. I hope that in this case I shall have the support of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), who is a very distinguished recorder himself. I am sure he does not wish to be protected against artists who may wish to make pictures of him while he is carrying out his duties, and, as I see he has an Amendment later which I hope to support, I hope he will support me on this.

Captain BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain BENN: I think the Home Secretary is rather framing his Parliamentary conduct upon what I may call the Italian model. But we have not yet reached the stage when only the Government may put down Orders or dictate business. What is this Amendment? As far as I can see, if a newspaper says, "Here is a case against such-and-such a notorious criminal, and we will publish a photograph of the learned Judge who is trying the case." it renders itself liable to prosecution. How are they going to prove that the photograph was not taken in Court? The case is that the taking of photographs in Court influences the course of justice and upsets witnesses. If a photograph is published, and it is alleged that it is a photograph in breach of paragraph (a) of this Clause, how is the newspaper going to defend itself? When you come down to registrars, magistrates, justices and coroners, whom it is the particular purpose of this Amendment to exclude, it really seems to be going much too far in a direction in which it was never necessary to embark at all. I should think it would be a little mark of consideration, perhaps not to me, but to the House, if the Home Secretary
would explain why it is necessary in the case of every one of these officials to forbid it in this rigorous way under a penalty of £50, and create this new offence in respect of these people. If the Home Secretary does not think it necessary to give an answer, everyone will judge that he has no case. I submit that there is something in the Amendment, and that it deserves consideration.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reason I did not rise was that I felt so sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a strong case to put and was to leave me to answer that I was waiting to hear what was the case. I intended no discourtesy at all. Quite the contrary. All I have to say in answer is that all these officers are concerned in the administration of criminal justice, and if a Recorder is to have protection I see no reason why a Registrar or a Coroner should not be equally protected. With regard to the other point, as to how a newspaper is to prove that it did not take a photograph in Court, the point is quite the contrary. In England the prosecution Has to prove that an offence was committed, and the prosecution in this case will have to prove that the photograph was taken in Court. If a Judge likes to have his photograph taken at a camera studio that has nothing to do with the Bill. All we have to do with is the administration of justice.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 33, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words "or in the precincts of the building."
I think this goes much too far. I do not know where the precincts are supposed to begin and end. The precincts of a cathedral, for example, are a very wide area. It is much too vague for the new offence that this Clause creates.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain BENN: Of course, the Home Secretary has the assent of the majority of the House, and we are not even enough to divide on these things, but he would show more consideration if he dealt briefly with the Amendment on its merits. What exactly is meant by "the precincts of the Court"? Sup-
pose a case is being tried at the Law Courts in the Strand. After all, there are a large number of Press men, who are also working men, trying to earn their living, and they should not be subject to penalties. Supposing one of these men went on the pavement opposite the Court. Is that the precincts? What is meant by the precincts? Does it mean that he is not to cross the threshold with a camera or that he must wait outside, and how far outside is he to wait? What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean? If he desires to prevent this offence, as he thinks it, how far does his protection carry the witness or the Judge or the Registrar? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us whether there is some technical meaning attached to the word. If a man stands in the street and observes a Judge or a witness approaching the Court, lifts up his camera and takes a photograph, will he be an offender under the Act? Before we create a new offence if there is anyone in the House who cares for liberty at all, we ought to press for some definition of these words.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to the Law Courts, it would mean the corridors and the steps leading to the courtyard.

Captain BENN: Would it mean the street outside?

2.0 P.M.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not in a position to express an opinion whether it does. It would be a matter for the Court to decide. That will be better raised on another Amendment. The precincts undoubtedly mean that which is in the boundary of the Court premises. I am quite convinced that the House, having decided that photographs shall not be taken in Court, will extend it, not merely to the Court, but to the corridors and yards.

Captain GARRO-JONES: We all know-there are some people who are clever with their pen, and can make a sketch more or less from memory. I have seen many conspicuous examples of that. What would be the position of a man, who, outside the Court, possessed one of these photographic memories and retired to his office in Fleet Street to prepare a sketch? Would he be subject to prosecution?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is clearly not taking or making a sketch in Court.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, for which I thank him very much, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I beg to move, in page 33, line 37, after the word "building," to insert the words "(not being part of a highway)."
You are here creating a new offence, and it ought to be somewhat strictly defined. Therefore, I think, unless the intention is to stop people taking photographs on the highway, there can be no objection to putting in these words. It is quite clear that there is some slight doubt what the precincts of the Court means, and it is only right and reasonable that we should say the highway is not to be taken as part of the precincts of the Court.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the House ought not to pass this. We decided that photographs will not be allowed to be taken in Court, and the Clause that was sanctioned by my predecessors in two Governments goes on to say, "or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch made of a person while entering or leaving the Court room or any such building." If you put in my hon. Friend's words it will simply mean that while we stop the evil at one place, in the precincts, a whole battery of cameras will be standing on the highway just outside when the unfortunate person is leaving the Court to get into an omnibus, tram or cab, and he will be snapped all along the line. If we are going to do the thing at all, I hope the House will do it thoroughly.

Mr. B. SMITH: Why not start from the home, and do it thoroughly?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would be outside the scope of the Bill. I hope the House will give me these last few words. The Clause is an experiment, but I think it will do a great deal to remedy the present state of affairs, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am not quite clear when the process of entering or leaving the precincts of the Court begins. A man may be coming along the street, and there will be a battery of cameras to greet him: but when he enters the precincts of the Court he will be safe. I would like to know when the process of "entering the precincts" actually begins.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is very difficult for me to define that. That must be a matter for the decision of the Court. Of course, I am not a Judge, but I should say that if an effort is made by a photographer to take a photograph, and he gets so close to the entrance of the Law Courts the yard of the Law Courts, as to show that he really intends to photograph a person who is known to be a witness in a case, then the Court must decide that he is so near the precincts of the Court as to come within the scope of this Clause. If he was away, say at the end of the Strand, when he took the photograph, then the witness could not be entering or leaving the precincts of the Court.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I have had a somewhat lengthy personal experience in these matters. If this provision is to apply to the precincts of the Court, the one place where it ought to be effective, and where it is required, is in the street on the way into the Law Courts. It is there that the army of photographers assemble and when the party to be photographed appears at the door of a taxi they are at once assailed, snapshotted from above, below, from the front and behind in every direction. I have known cases times out of number in which people have had to be taken the back way into the Court and taken out by the back way so that they might avoid the publicity that is so certain in the short passage from the taxi to the Court. That is the one place that should be protected. If you do not protect it, you will render the whole provision useless.

Captain BENN: We must keep in mind always the crime that is being aimed at. It is not any more serious than that of publishing a picture. It is not a case of doing anything which is very demoralising. We are aiming at people who photograph people concerned in cases at the Courts, because we think it affects the nerves of people in Court. That is the whole offence. I was satisfied with
the word "precincts," but we now find that there is another definition and that the word "precincts" does not really cover what is meant, because it may include a part of the highway. When the hon. and learned Member moves to define "precincts" as not including part of the highway the Home Secretary says, in effect, that we cannot have that definition because we intend this to apply to the highway.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The inclusion of these words would lead to confusion.

Captain BENN: We have gone a little further than the original purpose, which was to prevent the taking of photographs which were alleged to have certain effects on witnesses. We have forbidden a man to make or attempt to make a sketch or a photograph in the stairway or in the corridor or in the yard of the Law Courts. Now we are to go further and say that

by the word "precincts" we do not exclude the highway. Why not say quite plainly, "We are not going to permit the Press to publish any pictures of anybody who is involved in one of these cases"? That is what it amounts to. The man may be near the Court. How near may he be? If these words are not to be accepted as being hostile to the purpose of the Bill, then the proposal really is to empower the police to punish a Press photographer or a Press artist for anything he may do in the way of illustrating any party to a suit, whether they are in the Court or not in the Court. That is going much too far, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will press his Amendment, in which case he will have the support of some hon. Members on these benches.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 44: Noes, 215.

Division No. 381.]
AYES.
[2.12 p.m.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, Walter
Grotrian, H. Brent
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Weir, L. M.


Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, W.
Owen, Major G.
Major Crawfurd and Captain


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Garro-Jones.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalton, Hugh


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Albery, Irving James
Bromley, J.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Day, Colonel Harry


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dennison, R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bullock, Captain M.
Drewe, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cassels, J. D.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bennett, A. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Berry, Sir George
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ganzoni, Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cope, Major William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cove, W. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W.
Grace, John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Broad, F. A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Hardie, George D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harland, A.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Smithers, Waldron


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Montague, Frederick
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Templeton, W. P.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thurtie, E.


Jacob, A. E.
Palln, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pease, William Edwin
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William 
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Viant, S. P.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kennedy, T.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kenyon, Barnet
Plicher, G.
Warrender, Sir Victor


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, J. Q.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lansbury, George
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Watson, Rt. Hen. W. (Carlisle)


Lindley, F. W.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remer, J. R.
Westwood, J.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Loder, J. do V.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lord, Walter Greaves
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, L.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor, Walter


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wise, Sir Fredric


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macintyre, Ian
Scrymgeour, E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Scurr, John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shepperson, E. W.



Macquisten, F. A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smile, Robert
Captain Hacking and Captain


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
 Viscount Curzon.


March S.
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)

CLAUSE 42.—(Power of arrest under warrant.)

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
When a person presents himself as a police officer under this Clause, what evidence can the citizen who is visited ask as to the authority under which the arrest is made? In these days when gentlemen belong to the British Fascist and when another organisation of master service is being created it is not unreasonable to expect that we shall have a large number of these toy soldiers and imitation policemen going round the country and having it out of their political trade union Socialist and Communist opponents, and it may happen on our side that we would like to have a little play acting either as constables or magistrates and so on with Tories, and other extraordinary beings who are to be found up and down the country. Here
is a Clause which states that, say, the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Birmingham might come down to my house disguised one night, and say that he is a policeman.

Mr. HANNON: I want to assure my hon. Friend that I shall never go disguised to his house in any circumstances whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member might come as he is, and that would be bad enough. Another hon. Gentleman says that he might come disguised as a Member of Parliament. What I would like to ask the representative of the Home Office, or the legal representative of the Government is, why is it necessary to give this extraordinary power? I understand that at present, in certain emergencies, it is possible, as was done the other day, to arrest a man in Glasgow, for an offence said to have been committed in London, without warrants
being shown. In that ease the judge has held that it was all right, because of the conditions under which it was done. If it is possible to do it now under any conditions of emergency, I do not see why there should be this very wide scope given under this Clause. I am certain that if the Clause goes through, even with the Amendment that the Home Secretary is to propose later, the Clause will be open to very grave abuse.
We have all laughed and made fun about this, but it is a fact that people have already been kidnapped in this country, and within very recent times. A certain gentleman known as a member of the Communist party was taken from a railway carriage, entertained in a pub all night under duress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He may or may not have enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed myself, too. If the hon. Gentleman opposite who has such a great affection for me, gathered up two or three pals and waited on me in similar circumstances, even if he took me to a pub, I would make the best of it. That is what any ordinary person would do. But that is not the point. Being arrested by a genial barbarian, such as some of the hon. Members opposite, would not be very terrifying, but if they were people in black shirts and carrying tin swords and looking very ferocious, even a hardened criminal like myself might be scared. There are people who have not had the same experience as the hon. Gentleman opposite and myself, and to them such an experience would be very bad indeed. These are days when there are lots of very officious people about. The Home Secretary encourages them. There are very officious people who are going to assist the Government to maintain the Crown and the constitution. Of course that is all humbug and bunkum. The constitution and the Crown are perfectly safe as long as the constitution is worked in the proper manner.
The point is that there are all these very mischievous persons organising themselves, and I can see that one of these nights, when some of us are going home, we shall have gentlemen tapping us on the shoulder and proclaiming themselves as members of the police force, and we shall have no option but to submit to
them or to commit a breach of the peace, for which we should probably be punished. We have no means of discovering who these people are and what their authority is. At least, if they are not to have a warrant, let us have in the Clause a provision that they must carry a document or something which can be shown to the person they wish to arrest as proof that they have a right of arrest. There may very well be a murderer or some other criminal whom a police officer may recognise. The police constable should have the right to stop him, but the constable ought to carry some document which he can show to the accused person as proof that he has the right to exercise the power of arrest. I ask that some words be inserted in the Clause to safeguard us against the people who are so anxious to assist the Government in keeping down Bolshevism and other wicked doctrines. If you want the law to be respected, the law must be carried out in a proper manner. It is not a proper thing to allow a police officer or a person purporting to be a police officer to arrest a citizen without giving that citizen proof that there is authority to arrest him.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to second the Amendment, because I think the Clause is a very dangerous extension of the powers of arrest, especially in these times. We on the Labour Benches are now in a very difficult position. We know that we are more or less what the lawyers call Ferae Naturae. Anyone who can capture us may do so, and, if we happen to possess such things as motor lorries, steal them. We want to try to get protection from irregular arrest as much as we can. We do not know at any time whether we may be charged with some offence. We know that for certain offences we can be arrested on suspicion. A warrant may be issued anywhere for apprehending us. We may know nothing about it. We may be charged by a constable. Already this evening I have had occasion to express my confidence in our ordinary police constables. Most of us were rather surprised at the sudden outburst of objection to the police by hon. Members opposite, and we realised how far the Bolshevik ferment had gone, even to the extent of affecting the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer).
All sorts of curious people are now becoming, and are advised to become, constables. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir T. V. Bowater) suggested that some stout follows should become constables. As far as I can make out, the odds are that when someone comes along as a constable he will turn out to be some felon or possibly someone contemplating felony. He may be an ex- "Black and Tan' with Irish experience. We have special constables sworn in all over the country. We are liable to be tapped on the shoulder by any of these people. We shall have the greatest possible difficulty in recognising that they are on the side of the law and not against it. There are two groups in the country who believe in violence, and the Home Secretary is encouraging both, the one by approbation, the other by advertisement. Lord Chesterfield encouraged the young men of the country by his advice to put on a black coat and go into society. The Home Secretary's advice to them is to put on a black shirt and go for society.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Are the arguments of the hon. Member relevant to the Amendment? The Clause says that a warrant must have been lawfully issued before a constable can tap my hon. Friend on the shoulder.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): As far as the hon. Gentleman has gone, he is in order.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Clause will prevent either the hon. Member opposite or myself when we are being arrested from knowing that there is a warrant lawfully issued. These are dangerous times for us. I am sure that we have the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are up against the regular constabulary. We are up against the highly irregular constabulary by whom we are being surrounded, and we hold that there ought to be at least some minimum evidence given that the person who is arresting is authorised so to do by a proper warrant, and that he is not in conspiracy with other people to plunder our goods. The door is being opened very wide to crime in this matter. In our view there is a general encouragement to violence in this country, and we want every protection. We
oppose this Clause, and we say here that anyone who is to be arrested ought to be able to see that the warrant has been issued by a Justice, and that he ought to obey it quietly, otherwise there will be a liability to a breach of the peace on the part of the person who is being arrested, in addition to the original offence for which the arrest is being made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I think the Amendment has been moved under a misapprehension. I do not wish to enter into the question raised as to the apprenhensions of certain parties in this country regarding the operations of the criminal law. I seem to remember some words which describe the nature of those persons to whom the law is a terror, but that does not matter for this purpose. The present law is that in cases of felony, which include, generally speaking, the more serious offences', no warrant is necessary. Therefore, if any persons wished to kidnap the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) they could tap him on the shoulder and pretend they were going to charge him with murder or some crime amounting to felony. That is possible to-day. In cases of misdemeanours which, generally speaking, are the less serious offences and in cases of summary offences, there is no power in general, to arrest without a warrant. It sometimes happens that a person who has committed a misdemeanour, for example, in London, goes to York before the warrant has been issued. When the warrant is issued it may be easily possible to secure that person in York, but at present he cannot be arrested until the warrant has been brought from London to York and, meanwhile, he may have escaped, shall I say, to Belfast. It is in order to prevent that sort of hide-and-seek between the misdemeanant and the police that this very sensible alteration in the law is intended. It will not enable anybody to arrest any person for a misdemeanour or summary offence until a warrant has been issued, and an Amendment which the Home Secretary has accepted will make it necessary to produce the warrant at the earliest possible moment. This Clause has nothing to do with the creation of new offences or with
giving any new powers to the police to arrest without a warrant, but simply provides for facilitating the execution of the warrant when it has been issued. Any misguided or ill-disposed people, so foolish as to attempt to arrest anybody without production of a warrant, expose themselves to the ordinary liabilites for an illegal act—not only criminal proceedings but also civil proceedings for damages. I hope the House, more fully appreciating the present law and the alteration which it is proposed to make, will allow the Clause to pass.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Solicitor-General has given us a very complacent description of the existing law and the alteration which is proposed in the existing law. Were we to be satisfied completely by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and to be guided by that alone, we should be disposed possibly to allow the Clause, with the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary, to go through. Personally, I do not feel that the matter is so simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated. He will remember that in Committee considerable objection was taken to this Clause not only by members of this party, but by members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party and that to meet those objections an Amendment was put down by the Home Secretary. It is true that the position to-day is that a constable, if he thinks a felony has been or is about to be committed, can arrest a person then and there, but we are not dealing with that power of arrest. We are dealing with the power to arrest on warrant and the law is and has been since time immemorial that a person arrested on a warrant issued by a Justice, may demand that such warrant shall be in the possession of the police constable, at the time of the arrest so that he may see that it has been properly issued, that the person arresting him is a police constable, and that the charge is there described. The history of this Bill in the House of Commons is not a very happy one. Nearly all our objections have been to those parts of the Bill which tended to whittle down and lessen the protections of liberty at present existing. We succeeded in preserving grand juries and in persuading the Government to withdraw the objectionable
Clause dealing with general search warrants. We hope the Government will complete their recognition of the fact that in this matter we are the better Conservatives, by withdrawing this Clause which is to make an innovation in the law. The law has always been that in cases of misdemeanour—where mistakes are most likely to occur—persons arrested are entitled to see that the warrant is in the possession of the constable.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that I said anything different from that? I pointed out that the Clause is intended to prevent a game of hide-and-seek between the accused person and the police.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that the Solicitor-General spoke in so soothing and complacent a manner that he might have produced the impression on some Members that this was not a serious alteration in the law. I say you are now asking us to change the law as it has existed from time immemorial, to change the old Conservative traditions, the old traditions of the law which we have managed from these Conservative Benches to preserve, in the cases of the grand juries and the search warrants, against menaces by this Radical Government. In this particular case, we say there is no more reason for destroying the excellent principle that the constable should have the warrant, than for destroying any of the other older defences of liberty. The Solicitor-General says it is intended to prevent a game of hide-and-seek. Surely in these days it is easy to deal with these cases by means of warrants properly issued. If there were any great growth in crime we might understand this demand to take away the liberties of the subject which now exist, but there is, in fact, no increase in crime, and all statistics go to show that crime in this country is becoming less and less. What argument is there for continually increasing the powers of the police and the bureaucracy and smashing all the old common law of England point by point and item by item, as is attempted in this Bill? I have stood throughout these discussions on the old Conservative principle that the common law, through generations, has worked out certain safeguards for the liberty of the subject with which it is very dangerous to dispense. There
may be isolated instances of hide-and-seek and of difficulty in catching some particular criminal, but to deal with such a particular case the Government ask us to say that persons may be arrested without the production of the warrant. It is true that we extorted an Amendment— or if you like it was given to us—to the effect that the warrant should on the demand of the person apprehended be shown to him as soon as practicable after arrest.
I say that that is not a sufficient protection. We see no reason why persons should not repose on the safety which they have now got. An hon. Member behind me mentioned the case of a person assuming the office of a constable to which he is not entitled. You may also have the case of an officious constable acting without a warrant, thinking one has been issued somewhere else, and making a mistake. It is all very well to say that these things can be remedied afterwards, but hon. Members who say that, who are not acquainted with the practice of criminal law, either as magistrates or in any other way, do not seem to realise that to arrest people, bring them into Court, and put them under the stigma of the possibility of crime, may cause irreparable damage to the reputation and character of the men affected. Having got once to the position that they have been improperly arrested, it may be through some mistake, I say that you cannot remedy that afterwards in the simple way that some hon. Members think. It is an encouragement to the police to be careless to say they can arrest in warrant cases without a warrant. It is far better to stand on the old system of saying that a person shall not be arrested until the warrant can be obtained. If there are any difficulties in sending warrants about or in the duplication of warrants, let us have amendments directed to the mischief of which the Solicitor-General spoke, which is a comparatively limited thing with which we can cope, but the mischief which he suggested, that there may be delay in arresting a few people, is not a sufficient argument for destroying the whole of this old principle that a person is entitled to see the warrant before being arrested.
We have an enormous multiplication of offences nowadays. I do not want to speak of it now in detail—I should be out of order in doing so—but it seems to me that the one way of dealing with social
evils nowadays is to make new criminal offences. We have new offences, we have new kinds of constables created, gentlemen, as has been pointed out, recommended to be constables apparently on the ground that they have just committed a criminal offence, and where is it going to end? In the good old days, when people were more careful than they are now about the liberty of the subject, they would never have tolerated this sort of thing, and I ask the House to reject the Clause on the ground that, just like the Clauses which we have cither forced the Government to drop or on which we have defeated the Government when they have tried to carry them through, this Clause is a most dangerous invasion of the liberty of the subject.

Major CRAWFURD: I desire to associate myself with the Amendment. I have listened very carefully and with great respect to the exposition of the law by the two hon. and learned Members who have spoken, but I am bound to remind the House that the ordinary man is not a lawyer, and yet he is expected to understand the law and, understanding it, to conform to it. In the first place, this Clause seems to me to be drawn deliberately to give the widest possible latitude to the police in dealing with any offender or anyone believed to be an offender. It says that any person charged with any offence may be executed by any constable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I do not mean that the person may be executed, but the warrant, and the word "constable" presumably means a plain clothes constable, as well as a constable in uniform, and therefore a special constable. The ordinary man, in trying to conform to the law, has not only to try to understand the law, but to remember what is going on about him, and it is perfectly true that there are a number of people masquerading as persons of authority and using force to restrain the liberty of other people.
It is said that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and I cannot help remembering that I was myself once on the point of being arrested. It was some years ago, and I was followed over a considerable period by a person whom I suspected of being other than an officer of the law. He eventually stopped me. He was in plain clothes, and announced that he was an officer of the law. I was at
that time about 13 stone in weight and very fit, and I had had some experience of boxing, and was perfectly capable of defending myself against one person, but luckily I had noticed this man in conversation with a police officer. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that, apart from those people who masquerade, there are occasions when police officers themselves make mistakes. What is the position of the innocent person who is on the point of being apprehended by a person in plain clothes? The innocent person may perhaps have Socialistic leanings, and he knows there are certain people going about the country who are ready—we know the cases—to play what may be termed by them practical jokes on others, and he attempts to defend himself. What do you do by this Clause? The law, as I understand it, is that the person who is being arrested, either on suspicion or not, if he attempts to defend himself, is committing a new offence. You are running the danger of increasing the number of offences of that kind, and it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing that the officer, whether in uniform or plain clothes—because uniforms can be borrowed—should carry something which will show everybody that he is a person entitled to make an arrest. That seems to me to be the very least that can be asked from the Government.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the cases where criminals charged with grave offences evade arrest, where it may be possible to apprehend them in one place, but the warrant may not be available there. I do not know whether he meant to explain to the House the reason for certain events that occasionally happen in Belfast when he gave us the impression that the population of that city is recruited from undesirable sources. I do not know whether it is possible—the hon. and learned Solicitor-General shakes his head, but I have not yet said what I am going to put to him, and you cannot answer a question before it is asked—in a case of that kind, where the apprehension may be desired to be made in York and the warrant may be in London, by telephonic communication to issue a duplicate warrant.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: A warrant is issued when it is issued, and not before, and if it has been issued in
London and the man is in York, he cannot be arrested until it has been procured from London.

Major CRAWFURD: I understand that, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not really answered my question. I understand that a warrant is a warrant which is issued in a certain place, but what I say is that, if it be desired to arrest a person in York, and the warrant is in London, and you do not wish to wait for the warrant to be sent to York, is it not possible, by telephonic communication, to have a duplicate warrant issued which would be as official a document as the original?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Imagine the circumstances of a telephonic conversation from York to London. If the police get a magistrate to issue a duplicate warrant, it has to be sent from London to York in the same way as the original warrant would have to go, unless the intention is that, over the telephone, authority shall be given to issue a duplicate warrant in York merely because someone at the other end of the telephone says, "I am a police officer, and I want a duplicate warrant." That would be as mischievous as the other case.

Major CRAWFURD: I give it up. If the intelligence of the police service and of the Law Officers of the Crown is not great enough to overcome a difficulty of that kind with the use of a code, then I give up the attempt to help them. But I do say that this Clause as drawn, even with the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary, is a Clause which ought not to be a part of the law of this land, because it does leave it open to persons to interfere with the liberty of others, and if that be done, it makes it certain that those whose liberty is going to be interfered with, may be tempted and betrayed into committing an offence against the lawful officers of the Crown.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to relieve the anxiety of the last speaker and the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Any constable in plain clothes, whether special or otherwise, carries a warrant card, and if either of those hon. Members is in any trouble, he has only to ask for the production of the warrant card of authority to act as a constable. I happen to have served as a special constable, and I remember on
one occasion, within half a mile of this building, producing my warrant card. It had a most pacific effect on a large man who was punching a small boy. If the hon. Members who criticised this matter only realised precisely what are the requirements, they would realise that many of the dangers have no foundation in fact whatever.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Simply saying that you are a special constable, or something of that sort, would not satisfy me if an attempt were made to arrest me without cause. The card would show the man was a special constable, but not that, I was a criminal.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley referred to the possibility of people having no authority at ail making arrests, and the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) suggested that if a constable only had some authority, the difficulty would be got over, but I have pointed out they have already that which he say they ought to have.

Captain BENN: I realise that a layman has no proper place in this purely legal Debate, but supposing a man is approached by someone alleging himself to be, a constable, and he is asked for the warrant for arrest and the warrant is not produced, and the constable says "I have not got it here, but it exists," and then the man resists, would that resistance be an offence or not?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If a warrant has in fact been issued, and the man resists lawful apprehension, no doubt it is an offence, but if a warrant has not been issued for his arrest, it is not an offence.

Captain BENN: There is nothing to guide the man who has been arrested whether he has committed an offence or not.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 86.

Division No. 382.]
AYES.
[3.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hume, Sir G, H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crook, C. W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jacob, A. E


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Drewe, C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Elveden, Viscount
King Captain Henry Douglas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement


Bennett, A. J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Berry, sir George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy Lore
Loder, J. de V.


Brass, Captain W.
Forrest, W.
Looker, Herbert William


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougher, L.


Briggs, J. Harold
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Briscoe, Richard George
Gibbs, Col Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grace, John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bullock, Captain M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Macintyre, Ian


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cassels, J. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harland, A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harrison, G. J. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Captain D.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Meller, R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cohen Major J. Brunei
Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Murchison, C. K.
Salmon, Major I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Owen, Major G.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Pease, William Edwin
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest' Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.



Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Templeton, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Rice, Sir Frederick
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Captain Hacking and Mr. F. C.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Weir, L. M.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Windsor, Walter


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morris, R. H.



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Smith.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 34, line, 10, at the end, to insert the words
but the warrant shall, on the demand of the person apprehended, be shown to him as soon as practicable after his arrest.
This Amendment, in the name of ray right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has been put in in consequence of the request of hon. Members in the Committee upstairs.

Captain BENN: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether by regulation or other wise the arrested person will be informed that he has a right to inspect the warrant under which he is arrested?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is a matter of administration. I will represent the point to my right hon. Friend,
and perhaps he will see fit to issue an instruction on it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Abolition of presumption of coercion of married woman by husband.)

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do so because the Clause, as I understand it renders ineffective a defence which a married woman has had on a charge of crime for something like 300 years. That right ought not to be taken away from those who may be charged with a crime or from any defence which they may have to such charge. There are one or two very strong
objections to this Clause as it stands. I think it is necessary, first of all, that the House should understand exactly what is the position of the law at the present time. It is very simple and can be put very shortly. If a married woman commits a theft or receives stolen property, knowing the property to be stolen, in the presence of her husband, she is presumed to have acted under his coercion, and such coercion excuses her act. But this presumption may be rebutted if the circumstances of the case show that, in point of fact, she was not coerced. That only applies, first of all, to theft or the receipt of stolen property; it does not apply to high treason or murder, and it is doubted whether it applies to robbery from the person, although Mr. Justice Stephen held that it did; it applies to the uttering of counterfeit coins and it applies to misdemeanours. Some trouble arose on this question because, a few years ago, in a trial which caused a certain amount of excitement, the learned Judge withdrew from the jury the case against a married woman who was charged along with her husband with defrauding some bookmakers on the ground that there was no evidence that she had not acted under the coercion of her husband. The learned Judge later expressed the opinion that she did not act under the coercion of her husband, presumably on the ground that the circumstances of the case showed that she did not in fact act under the coercion of her husband. Decisions of that kind may create unfortunate precedents. At any rate, the excitement which arose over that case resulted in the appointment of a Committee, over which Mr. Justice Avory presided, and that Committee made the recommendation that the defence of coercion should be taken away altogether from a married woman, and that she should be left to the other portion of the law which gives a right to anyone to be excused of crime if the crime is committed—the crime being short of murder—under an immediate threat to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
Everybody will realise that there is a very wide area of compulsion between an act committed under an immediate threat to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and an act which is not committed under any kind of compulsion at all. When dealing with the relation of husband and wife one
can realise what very wide powers of coercion a husband may have which fall short altogether of a threat to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. I am one of those who take the view that that defence should not be taken away from a married woman. On the other hand, I can understand the point of view of those who say it should be taken away altogether. But this Clause neither carries out the recommendations of the Committee nor leaves the woman with any effective defence. It is drafted, I suppose, as a sort of half-way house; in fact, the result of it is to preserve the defence for those women who are not coerced, but to take it away entirely from those women who are. This would be the position under the Clause if it were enacted. The presumption is taken away, and then it is stated that the woman may have—the language is a little peculiar, and I will read it:
It shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.
I ask the House to consider the class of case that may and does arise. Take the case of a woman who has committed such a crime as theft, or the receipt of stolen property, under the brutal coercion of her husband, brutality which may fall very far short of either a threat to murder or to cause grievous bodily harm, but which will be none the less effective and brutal because it falls short of that. That woman is arraigned and charged with the offence of receiving stolen property or of theft. If this Clause were passed she could only establish her defence by proving the guilt of her husband in the witness box, and how many women are there who have been coerced like that, who dare go into the witness box in order to convict the very persons under whose coercion the woman had committed the crime? No woman would dare to go into the witness box under those circumstances, and consequently the woman who had been coerced would inevitably be convicted. If you take the woman with a strong mind and who had been able to induce her husband to take part in a crime, she would not hesitate to say in the witness box that her husband had coerced her, and she might even persuade a jury that she had been coerced and might get off.
Take the case where the husband and wife are equal partners in the crime. There is an old practice amongst a certain class of prisoner under which, if it is not possible for both of them to get off, they arrange for the one to get off that is best able to look after the business. Now, if the husband and wife were equal partners in crime, the husband might say, "There is no defence open to me." It is easy for him to say in the witness-box to his wife, "I coerced you," and he would do this in order that his wife might go back and carry on the business. Under these circumstances it is clear that this Clause does preserve a defence for those who really ought not to have it, but it deprives the coerced woman of the defence of coercion altogether, because she cannot go into the witness-box to prove it.
There is another point I would like to raise. At the present moment a wife is not a compellable witness against her husband. If this Clause passes into law, in a case where there has been some measure of coercion the wife, to establish that defence, would have to go into the witness-box, and there she could be asked questions which, but for this Clause, she could not be asked. Under these circumstances I think the proposal is a very serious inroad upon the defences of married women which should not be lightly taken away from them. This Clause infringes a very important principle of our law, which is that the whole onus in a criminal prosecution should be on those prosecuting, and no onus should rest upon the defence. As the law stands now, the whole onus is upon the prosecution, but if this Clause is passed you will shift the onus which has rested on the prosecution for hundreds of years. This is a very serious step, and it is one which I hope this House will not sanction. It is very difficult to understand what justification there can be for it. From the fact that none of the women's organisations who talk so much about the rights of women have taken any very great interest in it, it would appear either that they do not take notice of the things that really matter, or that they think this is one of the opportunities of putting men and women on an equal footing. Personally, with the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds
(Sir H. Slesser), I am conservative enough to believe that no inroads should be made upon the safeguards which exist for the preservation of liberty, and I am conservative enough also to feel that you should make no inroads upon those matters which concern, and concern very deeply, the conditions which arise under the relationship of husband and wife. I venture to think that this Clause, if passed, would bring about a very serious defect in our Criminal Law. and I do appeal to the Government not to press it, but to allow it to be taken out of the Bill, so that this defence which has existed for so long may still be retained by the women of the country.

Mr. CASSELS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for reasons slightly different from those given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord). I do so because this Clause is not in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which was appointed to consider this matter and which went very seriously into the whole case of coercion of married women and made a very definite recommendation. Upon that Committee, sat those who knew a great deal about the Criminal Law and they came to a unanimous decision, and their recommendation was to abolish the whole doctrine of coercion by the husband as a defence of the wife, leaving her on the same footing as other people, free to establish any defence of that kind of compulsion—the fear, not the threat as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned just now, of immediate death or grievous bodily harm—which affords a defence to any person except in the ease of certain specified crime. If that recommendation were put into the Clause, it would be in accordance with prevailing judicial opinion upon the matter. The fact that this doctrine is 300 years' old in my opinion presents ground for its continued preservation in these days when we are many years after the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, and a few years after the passing of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act. We live in times when every woman thinks that she is at least if not more than the equal of any man. She should take her full responsibility for anything that happens and be equal in all matters, not
only innocent matters but criminal matters as well. For these reasons, I would prefer to see the recommendation of the Committee put into the Bill rather than the Clause as it now stands.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is no doubt a somewhat technical matter, but it is much better that the House should deal with it not as a matter of technical or legal interest, but as a matter of substance, and I think the House should not regard it with any apprehension or as one which only lawyers can be expected to understand and discuss. I propose to ask the House to consider it as a matter of substance and hon. Members to address themselves to it as sensible men of the world. I do not think that there would be any quarrel or difference between my hon. and learned Friends and myself as to what is the law, though I respectfully think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) who moved the Amendment did not quite accurately state it. I think it would be of interest if I read the passage from the Report of Mr. Justice Avory's Committee—

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: May I tell the learned Solicitor-General that the statement of the law which I gave, I read from the "Digest of Criminal Law," by Sir James FitzJames Stephen?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not know where my hon. and learned Friend got it, but I take it that the House will probably desire that there should be no difference of opinion on a purely legal question, and I think it would probably accept the statement of the law, which is quite short, which was drawn up by Mr. Justice Avory's Committee, on which the late Sir Richard Muir, Sir Travers Humphreys, and the Director of Public Prosecutions himself, as well as other learned judicial persons, sat. If the House will allow me to read this statement, it will be in full possession of the law as it stands to-day. The statement is this:
In the case of crimes committed by the wife in the presence of her husband the presumption of coercion which excuses the wife has no application to the crimes of murder or treason, but is held to apply to all other felonies and to all misdemeanours.
My hon. and learned Friend limited it to a narrower class of crime.
The doctrine of coercion as applied to such crimes committed by the wife in the presence of the husband only raises a prima facie presumption, which is capable of being rebutted in all cases by the evidence, and if it should appear in any particular case that the wife has done some independent act from which the inference can be drawn that she was acting voluntarily and not under the coercion of the husband, the case against her must be left to the jury to determine whether she was in fact acting voluntarily or under his coercion.
As, I think, everyone will remember, the public were shocked by a notorious case in which the learned Judge stated to the jury that he was of a certain opinion as to the degree of moral guilt attaching to one of the persons charged, but had to direct the jury that, owing to this presumption of coercion, the case against her would have to be withdrawn. It was arising out of that case that the Committee was set up. There are three courses possible. One is that the old presumption should continue. I suppose we shall all be agreed, however, that it is now too late in the day to allow such a strange presumption as that to prevail in a Court of law, because the same consequences may happen again as happened in the notorious case to which I have referred. The second possible course is to abolish the presumption, and leave the wife to do what any of us might do if he were charged with some crime, and say that she did not do it with any evil intent, but acted under absolute compulsion, which imports some fear of bodily harm—something in the nature of physical compulsion. That is a defence which is open to anyone charged with a crime. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment would prefer that course, that is to say, that the presumption should be abolished altogether, and that the wife should be left in the same position precisely as any of us or any other subject.
The third course is that adopted in the Bill, namely, to say that we will abolish the purely technical, legal presumption, but leave it open to the wife to establish, not merely the defence that she was compelled—that is to say, was driven to commit the crime by fear of bodily, physical injury—but to satisfy the jury
that she was in fact coerced. That gives her a rather wider and more extended line of defence than pure compulsion, because coercion imports coercion in the moral, possibly even in the spiritual, realm, whereas compulsion imports only something in the physical realm. I respectfully suggest to the House that most hon. Members will think that, while women in these days are, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, in all respects the equals and in many respects the superiors of all of us, yet at the same time I hope that the sense of a woman's particular qualities will not blind us to the desirability of leaving it open to her to convince a jury, if she can, that she committed a crime, not, perhaps, under actual threats of physical violence, but at any rate under such moral and spiritual compulsion in point of fact as is properly described by the word "coercion."
Now there comes the question that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood said, it would be very hard in some cases to satisfy a jury, and he also suggested that some bold woman, who might in fact have coerced her husband, might go into the box and say that she was coerced, and so secure her acquittal. I think that is to give British juries credit for very little common sense. I think most English juries would be capable of deciding whether or not a woman was in fact coerced by her husband. That is the issue for the House. This is not a legal technical question at all. It is quite void of any technicalities. It is simply whether we shall give a wife who is charged with a criminal offence a slightly extended form of protection which is not available to the members of the general public. That is not the proposal that commended itself to Mr. Justice Avory's Committee, who thought a wife should be placed in precisely the same position as anyone else, that is to say, defend herself by saying she had been driven to the crime by threats of physical violence. That is not a proposal which the Government can adopt, and I hope the House will think the Government have taken the sensible and humane course.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: As I read the Clause it gives protection to the wife when she is able to plead that she is acting under the coercion of her husband,
but it is only a defence if she commits the crime in the presence of the husband, so that the husband may have brought all sorts of coercion to bear upon her, he may say, "if you do not go round the corner and steal a purse I will shoot you." but it is no defence unless he is actually present when the theft took place. Is that intended?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No doubt the case my hon. and learned Friend puts would come under the ordinary defence of compulsion—physical violence.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: According to the Bill, the compulsion which is exercised by the husband upon the wife is no defence unless he was present when she committed the theft.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I have failed to make it plain. The defence of compulsion docs not depend upon this Clause. That is a matter of physical violence. This proposal is a slightly extended defence. She may prove that she was coerced. It is something more than physical violence. That extended defence only applies to cases where the offence is committed in the presence of the husband. I think there is good reason for that because it might be said, "whatever coercion in the moral or spiritual realm was employed, at any rate while you were not in your husband's presence you ought to be humane enough to be able to avoid that spiritual or moral coercion." When the woman is still in the husband's presence the influence of moral or spiritual terror is very potent indeed.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: But the coercion ceases to exist when the husband is not present.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the illustration we have just heard across the Floor of the House shows how important this alteration in the law is. As the Solicitor-General has said quite fairly, there are three courses open to us to pursue. Another great statesman said the same thing on a previous occasion. You may keep the law as it exists at present. Except my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) I do not think anyone is in favour of that. I am in favour of altering the criminal law, as the House knows, and though this doctrine may be said to be 300 years
old it has been altered frequently in various ways since that time, and certainly since I first began to lecture on law 40 years ago I always understood that that was one of the anomalies of the law which was to come to an end very soon, namely, that because an offence is committed by a woman in the presence of her husband therefore she is acting under his coercion and should be acquitted. That is the course I am going to advocate and I have an Amendment down for the purpose. The second course is to say that a married woman should be put in exactly the same position as any other citizen, and should be enabled to make the defence that she has acted under the compulsion of her husband or of anybody else but not under coercion. There is a real difference between compulsion and coercion. The third way of dealing with it is the way in which the Bill deals with it. I press very strongly upon the Government that that should be amended.
There is no sort of ground for treating a married woman in this matter in any way different from any other member of the community. Take the case of a man living with a woman to whom he is not married. Is the coercion which is likely to be exercised any less than in the case of a man who is married to a woman? Take a case where a man or a woman, a parent, instigates a child or some other relation to commit a crime. Is there any less likelihood of coercion in that case than there is between a man and wife? On the face of it, it is ridiculous to suggest that there is any real difference. So far as coercion is concerned, one may call to mind the case of wives and husbands among our acquaintances. If one found that crime had been committed by both of them in the presence of one another, and if one had any presumption, one would be inclined to say that the probabilities were that the husband was acting under the coercion of the wife rather than otherwise. The married Woman's Property Act and the Sex Disqualification Removal Act have been mentioned, but long before they existed there was no sense in this particular law. I ask that it should be abolished altogether, and that a married woman should be put, for the purposes of defence, in exactly the same position as any other citizen.
That is the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Avory. There is nobody except, perhaps, Sir Harry Poland who has had greater experience of the criminal law than that learned Judge. That being so, why do not we accept this definition? It comes from experienced lawyers, and it is good sense. Can hon. Members imagine anything more ridiculous than to suggest that there should be a power given to a wife to say, "I acted under the coercion of my husband," which is not allowed to any other human being to say in respect of anyone else? The Bill proposes to do this. If you can say that a crime is committed by a wife in the presence of her husband—it only applies to those cases and there are very few cases to which that does apply, because there are very few cases where a person commits one of these crimes in the presence of the husband, it is open for the wife to call evidence to show that she acted under the coercion of her husband. What is the definition of coercion here? I have no idea. An hon. Member opposite said there was not much difference between coercion and compulsion, but there is, legally, a great difference. What will the woman have to prove when she says that she acted under the coercion of her husband?
What is coercion? We have been told that it is something spiritual. Let us take it in real life where you have two people, a husband and wife, who enter, say, a draper's shop, and the husband steals an article which the wife puts into her bag. They are both charged with stealing. After the wife has been in the box she goes into the dock to prove that she acted under the coercion of her husband. What has she to prove under the Amendment? The husband says, "Let us go along and get something. There is nothing in the larder." How is she to be cross-examined The difficulty of putting a woman into the box to prove that she acted under the coercion of her husband is, to my mind, insuperable. Apart from the technical difficulty of giving effect to the Bill in its present form, this defence of coercion puts a married woman in a different position from any other woman, for instance, a woman living in adultery with a man or with a parent, and so on. This is not the proper course to take. The proper solution would be to do what
Mr. Justice Avory's Committee suggested, and make no difference between married women and other citizens, but leave the matter to be determined according to common law.

Mr. T. SHAW: I do not pretend to any knowledge of the law but I think that the Clause of the Government is better than either of the Amendments. I notice that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment show that extremes do sometimes meet, for while the Mover wants the law to remain as it is so that the wife, when married, is the chattel of her husband— the law that made the husband responsible for a wife was the law which existed in the days when a woman after marriage possessed no liberty—the Seconder of this Amendment seconds because he wants a woman to have, as it were, full liberty in every way, and to be treated absolutely apart from her husband. The Mover wants the rejection of the Clause so that the husband may be responsible, and the Seconder wants it because he wants the wife to be responsible, so that extremes do meet. What is there wrong after all about the Clause? In the first place it says that the woman shall be responsible for her actions, but it also says that, if those actions are due to coercion, in certain circumstances it shall be a good defence if that coercion can be proved. There are judges and juries who are able, I suppose, to determine whether the evidence given has shown that a woman has acted not of her own volition but under coercion. It is impossible to lay down in words everything that may happen. Was there ever an Act of Parliament that provided for every eventuality? Was there ever an Act of Parliament so drawn that it might not lead to litigation? If we had an Act of Parliament under which there was no litigation, that would meet the case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I would not like it at all.

Mr. SHAW: All Acts of Parliament have to be administered, and there are difficulties and differences of opinion as to every Act of Parliament. Will this Clause do anything that is worse than the ordinary position under any Act that we have? I claim that it will not. Surely in common sense it is a perfectly
easy thing for a judge or jury to determine whether, in given circumstances, a married woman has acted on her own volition and committed a crime, or has committed it under coercion. Whilst one can recognise the absolute right of a woman to equality before the law, one has also to realise the facts of actual life. Everyone knows that crimes have been committed by women under the coercion of their husbands. This Clause gives the wife who has been wronged in that way an opportunity of proving to judge or jury, or both, that that is the fact. If the fact be demonstrated, then the person really responsible can be dealt with, and the person who has acted under coercion can be allowed to go free. I shall vote in favour of the Clause in the Bill. I think it would be rather a reflection on judges and juries to suggest that they do not know what coercion is and that they have no idea whether a woman committed or did not commit a certain crime under coercion.

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): May I respectfully make an appeal to the House (c give us this Bill to-day? I understand that the pressure of business is such that unless we get this Bill to-day it will very likely have to be sacrificed. Therefore, I hope that the House will allow us to have the Report stage and Third Rending. The Home Secretary has given up two of the contentious Clauses altogether — those dealing with Grand Juries and with search—and he has made a great many other concessions. The first 10 Clauses of the Bill deal with probation, about which the whole House is unanimous.

Captain BENN: I can assure the Under-Secretary that those of us on these benches, although we take exception to some parts of the Bill, see a great deal in it that we wish to have passed into law. But that does not in the least mean that the Bill should be passed without proper discussion. Moreover, there is ample time for its discussion on future days, if the Government are willing to adjust their programme accordingly. It is because the Government want to reserve future days for Bills towards which we do not show the same benevolence that they ask us to hurry now. I am afraid that we cannot pass the Bill without due discussion.

Captain GARRO-JONES: This is another example of the lack of forethought displayed by the Government when they fixed the re-assembly of Parliament for 16th November after a vacation of over three months. It does not appear to be a sound argument for passing this Bill to say that if we do not pass it to-day we shall not pass it at all. In passing a Bill I want to know about what I am voting. The particular Clause we are discussing now offers a great deal of scope for discussion. It seems to have been very badly drawn. A Clause which includes the expression "within the presence of and under the coercion of her husband" has not been drawn with any regard to leading cases. Let me give one or two examples. Take the case of crimes which extend over a long period of time or crimes of a double nature. Take the case of a wife convicted of drunkenness while in charge of a motor car. Supposing the husband were present when she became drunk, and absent when she was in charge of the motor car. There are scores of cases of this kind in which it would be absolutely impossible for a, jury to come to a decision on the basis of this Clause. The old presumption in law led to quite sufficient litigation, but this proposed new state of the law would lead to endless litigation. I did not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) when he said that it was impossible to make a law absolutely watertight. He appeared to argue from that that it was unnecessary to make laws as watertight as possible, but every Clause which we pass should be made as watertight as possible. In spite of the fact that we may risk having to take time from other Measures. I hope the House will discuss this Bill and refuse to pass it until it is amended in this respect.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word ' but,' in line 19, stand part of the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON and Lord STANLEY were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. EAWLINSON:
In page 35, line 19, to leave out from the word 'abolished' to the end of the Clause.

Mr. RAWLINSON: In view of the position which the Bill stands, I do not propose to move this Amendment, but I hope the Government will consider it in another place.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." I do so in view of the absence of any representative of the Department.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE 3.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendment proposed: In page 39, line 25, at the end, to insert the words


5 Geo. IV. c. 83
The Vagrancy Act, 1824.
In section four the words ''in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort."

—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this fact, that he wishes to repeal the words
in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort,
But on looking at the Act in question, as far as I can see, it purports to prevent the exposing of indecent pictures to the public. But what I want to call attention to is that in lines 11 and 12 are the words
in any street, road, highway, or public place.
There is a difference in the wording of the Act, therefore, and the wording of the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into it with his draftsman. Secondly, it is rather vague as to what is referred to. This is a well-known Vagrancy Act, and this particular Section of it deals with everything imaginable in the way of petty offences, from poaching to threatening robbery with violence and all kinds of other things. I should like to know what is meant to be referred to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The very filthy offence of exposing the person with intent to annoy children. What I am aiming at is to remove a limitation in the. Act. At present that abominable offence, to be an offence, must occur on the public highway, and I want to remove that restriction.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will draw the attention of his draftsman to the other point I made.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will look into that.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be- now read the Third time."

Captain BENN: We have had a certain amount of discussion on this Bill, but there has been a good deal in it to which many people would take exception, and I do not think it is fitting that the Bill should pass out of the control of this House without a further opportunity being given to hon. Members to express their views on some parts of it. As regards Part 1 of the Bill, it contains a great deal that is good, and that, I think everyone will agree deserves the support of all who desire to see an improvement in the administration of justice. But I am afraid that the same meed of praise cannot be offered to other parts of the Bill. It is noticeable that in the course of the Bill some very important changes have been made, at the instance mainly of the official Opposition in this House. The Government, for instance, proposed to abolish grand juries, and, leaving the matter open to a free vote of the House, their original proposal was defeated by hon. Members, a thing which in itself throws an interesting light on what might happen in this House if Members were allowed to vote always
according to their conscience instead of under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and his subordinates. Then we come to the second very objectionable Clause about the search warrants, and it is significant that the Home Secretary felt that even he, who poses as a strong man in such matters, was going a little too far, and that he was compelled, at the beginning of to-day's sitting, to withdraw the whole of that Clause.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that on the Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill, and not what might have been.

Captain BENN: I am aware of that, and it is clear that I was going beyond the strict Orders of the House in dealing with a Clause which had been omitted. I did not do it wilfully. There are other Clauses, however, left in the Bill which give rise to serious consequences. There is the Clause on which we eat sometime this afternoon dealing with the infringement—

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The, remaining Government Orders were rend, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Monday next (23rd November), pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November.

Adjourned at Two Minutes after Four o'Clock.